Did the USA lose the War of 1812?

[DrDeth]

In this Staff report:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwar1812.htm

It is argued that the USA lost, and that Canada won- or at least that the USA perhaps came out with a draw. Many factors are considered. But there's one that isn't- respect for US Naval power.

Even though the US Navy was still no match for the British Navy, the series of humiliating single ship duels that the US frigates won against British Frigates was shocking to the brits. At that period, it was assumed that the Bristish Navy could not lose except in the face of overwhelming odds. The USN proved different.

Thus, even though that various "free shipping" and impressment issues were not mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent, the British stopped those practices against our ships, largely due to a respect for American naval power.

Thus, even though those issues weren't even mentioned in the Treaty, the USA got what it wanted. We "won".

Still and all, as far as the land war went, I agree our Canadian neighbors can say much the same. They "won" too.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thus, even though that various "free shipping" and impressment issues were not mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent, the British stopped those practices against our ships, largely due to a respect for American naval power.

I think it was more due to the fact that the British stopped them because they weren't neccesary anymore. The Napoleonic wars were largely over, so Britain wasn't desperate enough for manpower that they needed to impress sailors anymore, and they no longer were trying to enforce a blockade against France.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thus, even though that various "free shipping" and impressment issues were not mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent, the British stopped those practices against our ships, largely due to a respect for American naval power.

Got a cite?

I'll grab Hickey's books at lunch, and I'm going on memory right now.

But the Orders in Council (most of the blockade and trade stuff) were called off before any of those naval battles took place; indeed they were called off before war was declared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_...ers_in_Council

[PBear42]

Nice report. FWIW, I was always taught that the War of 1812 was a draw. Interesting to learn even that is a bit of an exaggeration, as far as the war (as distinguished from the peace) is concerned..

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

Got a cite?

I'll grab Hickey's books at lunch, and I'm going on memory right now.

But the Orders in Council (most of the blockade and trade stuff) were called off before any of those naval battles took place; indeed they were called off before war was declared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_...ers_in_Council

It is true that the orders in Council had already been repealed. But Impressment didn't stop until Napolean was defeated or the end of the War of 1812 (which more or less happened at the same time). From Wiki:
"The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won a majority of the single-ship duels during the War. Also, American privateers and commerce raiders had captured large numbers of British merchant ships, sending insurance rates up and embarrassing the Admiralty."

"The United States did gain a measure of international respect for managing to battle the British Empire to a standstill. The morale of the citizens was high because they had fought one of the great military powers of the world and managed to survive, which increased feelings of nationalism; the war has often been called the "Second War of Independence." "

[What Exit?]

From Memory:
A large part of our Naval victories were the results of choosing our battles and the superiority of our Frigates. These Frigates that included the USS Constitution were constructed from 2000 Southern Live Oaks and were effectively the strongest and thickest hulls of any war vessel of the time. It additionally had innovative cross bracing that added to the strength. I believe it was the Brits that coined the nickname Ironsides from the shock of seeing cannonballs bounce off the hull.

Six of these Heavy Frigates were commissioned; I do not know how many saw time in battle. These were all superior to any British ship of the same size. The Frigates were also faster then larger Ship of the Lines and could evade combat with the superior firepower, usually with ease.

This contributed greatly to our victories in single ship combat.

Jim {Great report Gfactor}

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

It is true that the orders in Council had already been repealed. But Impressment didn't stop until Napolean was defeated or the end of the War of 1812 (which more or less happened at the same time). From Wiki:
"The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won a majority of the single-ship duels during the War. Also, American privateers and commerce raiders had captured large numbers of British merchant ships, sending insurance rates up and embarrassing the Admiralty."

"The United States did gain a measure of international respect for managing to battle the British Empire to a standstill. The morale of the citizens was high because they had fought one of the great military powers of the world and managed to survive, which increased feelings of nationalism; the war has often been called the "Second War of Independence." "

I don't dispute that America's fledgling Navy gained respect. And you are also correct that one of the consequences of the war was increased nationalism.
But respect isn't a victory. At all. Impressment was only going on because the British needed sailors for the Napoleonic wars, which as you point out, ended around the same time. For America, impressment stopped in 1812, because our ships were no longer neutral. It didn't resume because the Napoleonic wars ended. As Hickey says:

Could the British be forced to give up impressment? Probably not, since they believed that surrenderingt the practice would lead to wholesale desertions from the Royal Navy, the collapse of their naval power, and thus defeat in the European war. Given these circumstances, the United States would have been better advised to treat the issue not as a cuase for war but simply as the price (albeit a stiff price and one paid in human suffering) for doing business in a world at war.

Don't Give up the Ship at 20

Once the Orders-in-Council were repealed in 1812, impressment was the only obstacle to peace. since the British were unwilling to make concessions on this issue, the war continued . . . . [the British offered to negotiate directly with the U.S.] but they were in no hurry because Napoleon's capitulation in the spring of 1814 had ended the European war and put them in the driver's seat in the American war. Time was no unmistakably on their side. [The British moved men and materials to the American front tipping the balance in their favor.]

By the time peace negotiations finally got under way in August 1814 . . . the United States had dropped its demands on impressment and was willing to restore peace on the basis of the status quo ante bellum. . . . As their price for peace, however, the British now demanded territorial concessions[.]

The American envoys were astonished at these demands. They naively believed that the United States had the right to declare war on Great Britain, try to conquer Canada, and in the event of failure, to call off the war without paying a price.

Id. at 290

Hickey points out (294) that the U.S. claimed that it dropped its demands on impressment because the end of the war in Europe had rendered the issue moot. (In other words, the U.S.'s own claim about the issue undercuts your claim, but it gets worse). "Secretary of State James Monroe conceded to the American envoys that the administration had to drop impressment because the chances of winning concessions on this issue (which in truth were never very strong) had vanished altogether with Napoleon's defeat." He points out that the U.S. continued to press the British to give up the practice for over 25 years after 1814. The British were unwilling to abandon the practice. Fortunately, relative peace in the region prevented the issue from coming to a head, and in 1850s, the British instituted reforms that obviated the need for impressment.

[Elendil's Heir]

An excellent staff report - fair-minded and well-researched. For more on the war at sea, see Theodore Roosevelt (yes, the future President)'s fine account, The Naval War of 1812.

[Gfactor]

Thanks for the kind words, PBear42, What Exit?, and Elendil's Heir

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

I don't dispute that America's fledgling Navy gained respect. And you are also correct that one of the consequences of the war was increased nationalism.
But respect isn't a victory. .

But it is. Since the end of the War made Impressment moot, I'll concede that. However, when you are a new and fledgling nation, respect is critical. What the USN did to the British navy during the War 1812 might have kept us out of other wars. It (along with Jacksons victory at New Orleans which added to the respect)also may have lead to the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819 which gave us Florida and part of Louisiana, which was a pretty good deal the USA wrung out of a weakened Spain. But would even a weakened Spain have worried about a USA that had shown itself to be a push-over?

Respect is more important than you think.

I also agree this was a good article, in any case!

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Respect is more important than you think.

I agree respect is important. Winning it was an accomplishment, for sure; a feather in our cap. But I don't think it counts as a victory in the war of 1812.

We had won our two previous wars (and the Revolution, for that matter), btw:

The Tripolitan War and the Quasi-War (both of which are even more obscure than the War of 1812).

I also agree this was a good article, in any case!

Thanks.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

We had won our two previous wars (and the Revolution, for that matter), btw:

The Tripolitan War and the Quasi-War (both of which are even more obscure than the War of 1812).

I was going "Quasi-War" WTF? Then I went to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

And, I remembered it as "Undeclared War with France". Interesting too.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I was going "Quasi-War" WTF? Then I went to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

And, I remembered it as "Undeclared War with France". Interesting too.

That's the one. Quasi-War and XYZ Affair sound more mysterious, IMO.

[Bricker]

Dear GFactor:

Thanks a lot, Dr. Brain. You keep writing these outstanding Staff Reports and setting the bar a lot higher for us mere SDSAB mortals. Cut it out, whydoncha?

Sincerely,

Anony Mous

[C K Dexter Haven]

Yeah, I'll add my congrats and thanks to gfactor.

Who won? asks the OP. Well, the British burned Washington (poor chap.)

[astorian]

It would be silly to claim that the USA "won." We certainly didn't get anything tangible out of it. Overall, the War of 1812 was a stupid, unnnecesaary conflict... but one that was pretty much inevitable.

There was no clear good guy or bad guy- just a superpower behaving as superpowers usually do (like a bully) and a small, aspiring superpower spoiling for a fight.

Both sides grossly miscalculated. Britain thought that the USA was a pipsqueak, upstart nation that could be pushed around, and wouldn't dare retaliate. Many in the USA thought Canada was territory ripe to be taken, with minimal effort.

As it turned out, both sides were woefully mistaken. The net result: both sides wasted a lot of men and money and ended up with the status quo ante.

Now, while the USA didn't win anything tangible, it doesn't automatically follow that nothing was gained. Britain was forced to accept the inevitability of US expansionism, something they'd been trying to stifle. It seems likely that SOME kind of conflict over US expansionism was going to happen, even if "Mr. Madison's War" had been avoided by cooler heads.

As it is, both sides got their noses bloodied, for no particularly good reason.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by astorian

It would be silly to claim that the USA "won."

But as you can see, people do. Like I said, it's pretty much been argued every possible way.

In the nineteenth century, the acerbic Henry Adams appeared to argue that by signing a discgraceful treaty both Great Britain and the United States had lost the war, while more recently . . . Turner has suggested that both Canada and the United States won. Some American scholars have argued that the U.S. won.

Hickey, Don't Give Up the Ship!

Here Hickey cites Samuel Perkins, George Coggershall, Irving Brant, Marshall Smelser, Owsley, and Reginald Horsman.

He includes James, Hitsman, Reilly, and Stanley among the British and Canadians who claim the U.S. lost.

He continues

In between, one finds the most widely-held view that neither side won and that the war ended in a draw. . . . While this may be true in a strictly military sense, it understates British and Canadian success, overstates American success, and ignores the fate of the Indians.

Great book.

[Rhubarb]

Excellent Staff Report, GFactor! They did NOT cover this in my history classes.

And I, for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords.

[Chronos]

A thought on those naval battles where the American ships acquitted themselves so well... Might part of that have been due to the British habit of impressing, particularly of Americans? It seems to me that if I were an American sailor manning a cannon on a British frigate against my will, and Ol' Ironsides came up alongsides, my shots just might be a bit mis-aimed.

And for the record, I was taught in grade-school social studies that the War of 1812 was a draw, but that the US rather impressed the rest of the world by not losing outright. Which seems to be more or less what the Staff Report was saying. And when I was a bit older, I also learned how the American Indians got rather royally screwed by both sides in the process.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by Chronos

A thought on those naval battles where the American ships acquitted themselves so well... Might part of that have been due to the British habit of impressing, particularly of Americans? It seems to me that if I were an American sailor manning a cannon on a British frigate against my will, and Ol' Ironsides came up alongsides, my shots just might be a bit mis-aimed.

I thought the same thing this afternoon. I don't remember reading anything specifically about this. I'll take a look when I get a chance.

And for the record, I was taught in grade-school social studies that the War of 1812 was a draw, but that the US rather impressed the rest of the world by not losing outright. Which seems to be more or less what the Staff Report was saying. And when I was a bit older, I also learned how the American Indians got rather royally screwed by both sides in the process.

(Emphasis added.)

I'll see what I can find on the world's perspective on this. Apparently, Donald Graves wrote an article called "The Many Wars of 1812" in the Journal of the War of 1812 (Spring/Summer 2004). Hickey says that the Graves article argues that where you lived determined how you viewed the outcome of the war (a pretty basic notion). I wonder if Graves talkes about people who didn't live in British North America, Great Britain, or the U.S. I don't know enough world history offhand to put this in context.

The world must have seen that the tide was turning, after all. The Napoleonic wars were over, and British was turning its attention here. OTOH, if they thought the U.S. was about to get clobbered, the Ghent Treaty might have caused them to question their views . . . and then there is New Orleans . . . hmmm
BTW, I had never heard of the Patriot War until I was halfway through writing the report.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

But would even a weakened Spain have worried about a USA that had shown itself to be a push-over?

I knew I'd find a cite for this.

Cusick, in The Other War of 1812 (cited in the report) says that it was the Patriot War (the Other War of 1812) that caused Spain to realize that it had no future in Florida.

Cusick argues that the devastation of Florida in the Patriot War went far to persuade the Spanish crown that the province had no future except as part of the United States. Given the crown's weakness and the strength of the anti-colonial forces elsewhere in Spanish America, however, it is hard to imagine that East Florida could have remained a Spanish colony, even if the destructive Patriot War had never taken place.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n9434064

[Gorsnak]

The USN heavy frigates were indeed extremely effective ships, but had Britain actually used the full might of the Royal Navy against the US following old Boney's demise, they would have been entirely irrelevant. 1 on 1 they were unquestionably superior to RN frigates. They would have been completely impotent to lift the blockade of a port by a half dozen (or even 1 or 2) RN ships of the line, however. Sure, they might have successfully run the blockade themselves, but the point of such blockades was to stifle merchant shipping. The USN would have been incapable of preventing the RN from pretty much shutting down all Atlantic trade had Britain decided to do that.

Of course, by the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy had critical manpower shortages and was very eager to stand down a good portion of its strength (exactly why they wouldn't bend on the impressment issue in '12), so it's rather unlikely that such a course would have been pursued had the Treaty of Ghent fallen through. The point remains, however, that winning a few frigate duels did nothing to change the fact that the Royal Navy was the most powerful naval force on the planet by a margin as great as the USN enjoys at the current time.

[Nature's Call]

First I join the chorus of congrats on an informative well-written article!

If wondering what Canadians think about the War of 1812, may I suggest listening to "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" by the comedy music group "Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie"

Originally Posted by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie

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

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Nature's Call

First I join the chorus of congrats on an informative well-written article!

If wondering what Canadians think about the War of 1812, may I suggest listening to "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" by the comedy music group "Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie"

Yeah, if we Americans can claim we won the War of 1812, I guess the Canadians can claim they burned down the White House.

I did some reading about the naval battles of the War of 1812 and the Battle of New Orleans. Apparantly the American frigates had all the technical advantages over their foes, being more rugged, more far more heavily armed, and even being faster in some cases, due to a combination of their new design and the time spent at sea by the Royal Navy's ships before engaging the US Navy which simply had to run the blockade at Boston to find someone to fight with. Also, the US Navy had all-volunteer crews at the time, which may have given them an advantage in terms of morale against the British ships, which were using impressed sailors (not only impressed from American ships, but often concsripted from coastal towns in England). I've also read a couple of notes referencing the use of lead canisters for the powder for the cannons making loading in battle quicker, but I haven't found anything concrete for that.

All that said, the USS Constitution and her cohorts did spend a sizable chunk of the war bottled up in port due to maintinance issues and/or the British blockade.

As for the Battle of New Orleans... the British were having a lousy day. The commanding general of the forces there had been killed a few days previously, and when they attacked at New Orleans, they found two factors working against them:

1) The American forces, including Army, Militia, Sailors and even pirates, were lined up on top of a wall, with waterways on both sides preventing their being outflanked.

2) The British Army did not bring any ladders.

The battle went poorly for the British, and we Americans eventually got a catchy song out of the whole affair. Incidentally, in the fighting leading up to the Battle of New Orleans, we saw one of the few victories of the "Gunboat Navy" against the British, when a pair of US Navy gunboats were able to get close to shore and fire grapeshot at the British lines during a skirmish before being chased off by a Royal Navy frigate. (The system of mutually supporting coastal forts intended to support the fleet of gunboats against attackers never quite got built, and the gunboats tended to find themselves outmatched by British ships in their few naval engagements)

Oh, and I guess I'll jump on the "Great Article!" bandwagon.

[CalMeacham]

For some reason, I can't read the original article. I may have to wait until I get home.

Some comments, though:

1.)

I believe it was the Brits that coined the nickname Ironsides from the shock of seeing cannonballs bounce off the hull.

The books I've read credit the name "Old Ironsides" to a comment made by an American sailor, who observed a British shot bouncing off the side and shouted "Hurrah! Her sides are made of iron!" I'd believe the nickname more likely to be of merican than British origin, in any case.

2.) According to Edwin Hoyt's book on the U.S.S, Constitution, the British originally thought the Guerriere would take care of the Constitution in a half hour. After they were defeated, they complained that what the U.S. called a "frigate"" wasn't really what the British called a frigate, but was "a razeed 74" -- i.i., it was a much bigger boat with more guns. Part of the reason there were American victories at sea might have somethuing to do with the reality of the new American frigates exceeding British expectations.

3.) I was surprised, on visiting Ontario, about all the signs cklaiming Canadian victories in the War of 1812. We didn't learn about these in U.S. schools, and it definitely biases your viewpoint not to know the facts.

4.) In recent years I've learned that there was a great deal more to the War of 1812 than I'd learned in school. Besides the issue of impressment (which was the only one we were taught) there were U.S. ambitions in Canada and relations with nations involved in the Napoleonic conflict (which was virtually ignored in my schooling).

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

. OTOH, if they thought the U.S. was about to get clobbered, the Ghent Treaty might have caused them to question their views . . . and then there is New Orleans . . . hmmm
BTW, I had never heard of the Patriot War until I was halfway through writing the report.


I knew I'd find a cite for this.

Cusick, in The Other War of 1812 (cited in the report) says that it was the Patriot War (the Other War of 1812) that caused Spain to realize that it had no future in Florida.

The term"patriot War" is usually used to refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_War
"The Patriot War was a short-lived campaign in the eastern Michigan area of the United States and the Windsor, Ontario area of Canada. A group of men on both sides of the border, calling themselves "Patriots," formed small militias in 1837 with the intention of seizing the Southern Ontario peninsula between the Detroit and Niagara rivers. They based groups in Michigan at Fort Gratiot (present Port Huron), Mount Clemens, Detroit, and Gibraltar. In the winter of 1837 they attempted to seize the arsenal at Fort Gratiot but were stopped by state militia."

However your cite about the patriot War makes no mention of the very large impact Andrew Jackson, fresh from the Battle of NO, had during the Seminole wars (from Wiki)
"While Spain at first refused to rewrite any border in favor of the US, Spain had been forced to negotiate because it was losing its hold on its colonial empire, with its western colonies primed to revolt. Specifically, while fighting outlaws and Native Americans in US-controlled Georgia during the First Seminole War, Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida, but at the same time, he attacked and captured Spanish forts in Florida with absolutely no provocation, thus threatening war with Spain and causing national controversy. Some of Monroe's cabinet demanded Jackson's immediate dismissal, but Adams realized that it put the US in a favorable diplomatic position. Although Spanish power in the New World had long been in decline, Jackson's attacks had exposed how weak Spain was in the New World to the US, Latin American revolutionaries, and Europe. Taking an aggressive stance, Adams was able to negotiate very favorable terms."

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

The term"patriot War" is usually used to refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_War

I don't know about usually. It seems to be the semi-official name for both conflicts. But the conflict in East Florida isn't much discussed, and has a couple of other names (because it's still not clear whether it was an invasion, a filibuster, or a revolution (pdf)), so maybe you are right.

However your cite about the patriot War makes no mention of the very large impact Andrew Jackson, fresh from the Battle of NO, had during the Seminole wars (from Wiki)

Well, yeah, it was about a different conflict. It seems we now agree that there were other reasons besides the U.S.'s naval strength for Spain to take us seriously. Cusick says it was the conflict in East Florida during 1812-1814 (at least partially). Wiki says it was Jacskon's attacks during the First Seminole War (1817-1818) (at least partially). Heck, I bet they are both right, and there are probably many other factors to consider. It's pretty tough to find a but-for cause for just about any historical event. http://history-ontheweb.co.uk/concep..._causation.htm

[kjkolb]

In the article Did Canada win the War of 1812? Did Canada win the War of 1812?, the following text appears, "The British feared (correctly) that they would be blamed for Indian belligerence. Truth is, the last thing the British wanted was a war with America. They had their hands full with Napoleon."

If the British were so sensitive (and apparently perceptive, given the Indian situation) about getting into a war with the U.S., why did they so severely provoke the U.S. by spying, blockading its harbors, violating its waters, stopping and searching its ships, and the impressment of naturalized U.S. Britons and even of men born in the U.S.? Most of those seem to be more inflammatory than trying to rile up the Native Americans, let alone all of them put together. However, I do not know how much damage the Native Americans supposedly caused at the direction of the British.

[Gfactor]

There's already another thread going on this. Let's continue this discussion there: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=391578 , if that's ok.

Originally Posted by kjkolb

If the British were so sensitive (and apparently perceptive, given the Indian situation) about getting into a war with the U.S., why did they so severely provoke the U.S. by spying, blockading its harbors, violating its waters, stopping and searching its ships, and the impressment of naturalized U.S. Britons and even of men born in the U.S.?

All of that stuff was part of the war effort against Napoleon; not losing to Napoleon was very important. Also:

1. They called off the Orders-in-Council (blockade) before the war started.
2. Impressment was pretty much the only way they could maintain their navy. They claimed that the impressment of U.S. nationals was not intentional.
3. Spying wasn't a new idea, and everyone was doing it. We were engaged in all sorts of espionage in Florida during the same time-frame, for instance: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...9.2006.00536.x. In fact, John Henry's mission was probably identical to that of several of the patriots in Florida:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Sir James Craig, then Governor-General of Canada . . . employed him in 1809 to find out the extent of the reported disaffection to the national government in New England. Henry spent three months in Boston in this employment, reporting constantly to Craig by letter, and at one time thought that in the event of war between Great Britain and the United States, Massachusetts would take the lead in establishing a northern confederacy, which might, in the end, ally itself with Great Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(spy)

However, I do not know how much damage the Native Americans supposedly caused at the direction of the British.

You see, that's the problem. Almost none was caused at the direction (or with the assistance ) of the British. But they were blamed for instigating the Battle of Tippecanoe among others. According to Hickey, in Don't Give up the Ship!:

the British walked a fine line. They wanted to make sure that the Indians sided with them, but they did not want their native allies to provoke a war, nor would they go to war against the United States simply because their Indian allies did. In fact, the British did not aid the Indians when they fought American troops at Fallen Timbers in 1794 (although a number of Canadian volunteers did) or at Tippecanoe in 1811.

He points out that Americans did not understand British Indian policy. They refused to recognize that it was their own bad conduct and land grabbing that set the Indians against them. "The British actually tried to restrain their native allies. What few Americans at the time realized was that the British did not actually control the Indians." Id.

Basically, the British were willing to fight (if necessary) to maintain their maritime policies. But they didn't want to get involved in a war defending their native American allies.

Pierre Berton, in The Invasion of Canada 1812-1813, notes that Sir James Craig insisted that Indian agent Matthew Elliot to "dissuade the Indians from their projected plan of hostility, giving them clearly to understand that they must expect assistance from us." (66). He suggests that Elliot didn't get the message in time for it to do much good though.

[Spoke]

Interesting report, but I believe it is a mistake to conclude that the War of 1812 was "a bust" for the US.

It might have been a bust in the North, but in the South, we were fighting the Red Stick Creeks, armed by the British. Andrew Jackson resoundingly defeated the Creeks, and the ultimate result was that the Creeks ceded their lands in Southwest Georgia and Alabama, and the British efforts to use the Indians to weaken the US were thwarted. Significant gains for the US both geographically and geopolitically.

Moreover, Jackson's victory at New Orleans secured that vital port and ended British ambitions there.

[C K Dexter Haven]

At Gfactor's request, I've merged the two threads.

[kjkolb]

Sorry, I guess that I was unclear about one part. I got that the Native American attacks were not instigated by the British. I was just saying that I did not know how much damage the attacks did. If the damage was severe, then that would be a significant reason for the U.S. to go to war, even though the blockades, impressment and such seem like they would have been more inflammatory.

If I understand your answer correctly, the British were aware that their maritime policies may cause a war with the U.S., but they felt that they were vital to defeating the French. By discouraging the Native Americans from attacking, they were just trying to not make it even worse.

Calling off the blockade would have been a good step, but it seems like stopping and searching ships and impressing a significant portion of the crew, especially naturalized Britons and natives, would have been even more inflammatory than a blockade. I guess I have a hard time believing that the British were truly worried about a war with America based upon their flagrantly offensive behavior, especially not making sure (intentionally?) that the sailors they impressed were British citizens or at the very least naturalized Britons.

Please feel free to ignore any or all of the following questions, especially if they would be time consuming to answer. Anything that is answered does not have to be in order or in complete sentences and yes or no would suffice for some questions.

You said that impressment was the only way to maintain their navy. Do you mean the impressment of British citizens, naturalized Britons and those born in the U.S. or just the first one or two? Why did they need so many sailors if France had a crappy navy and if they were no longer blockading the U.S.? I know they were also blockading France, but still. With the end of the U.S. blockade, the likely small amount of deaths in battle (if France's navy sucked) and the sailors already impressed, it seems like they would not have needed to continue the impressment of new sailors. Was the impressment of U.S. citizens intentional despite their claims to the contrary? How did they decide who was British? Did the blockade of the U.S. before it ended or the impressment of non-British citizens do the British any good? Did the British force all British sailors into service, whether they were on American ships, British ships or on land? If not, why? What about British citizens who were not sailors? Were Canadians, sailors or not, impressed as well? What percentage of British sailors on warships were non-British citizens being impressed? Were there any mutinies or sabotage by impressed sailors? Did they limit impressed sailors access to weapons? Thank you very much.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by spoke-

Interesting report, but I believe it is a mistake to conclude that the War of 1812 was "a bust" for the US.

It might have been a bust in the North, but in the South, we were fighting the Red Stick Creeks, armed by the British. Andrew Jackson resoundingly defeated the Creeks, and the ultimate result was that the Creeks ceded their lands in Southwest Georgia and Alabama, and the British efforts to use the Indians to weaken the US were thwarted. Significant gains for the US both geographically and geopolitically.

Yeah, we won the Creek War, which is one of the reasons Hickey says the Indians in the U.S. were the biggest losers of all. We definitely beat them.

Moreover, Jackson's victory at New Orleans secured that vital port and ended British ambitions there.

Do you mean Britain's war-related ambitions? Or did Britain have its eyes on the port anyway?

At any rate:

1. Yes. We won some battles in the war.
2. Yes there were other consequences that proved beneficial. Nationalism, need for standing army was underscored, navy was proven competent, are some examples.

But

3. We didn't get what we came for. And we came very close to disaster.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by kjkolb

If the damage was severe, then that would be a significant reason for the U.S. to go to war, even though the blockades, impressment and such seem like they would have been more inflammatory.

Seems like every Indian-inflicted casualty was viewed as severe. They were "savages" after all.

If I understand your answer correctly, the British were aware that their maritime policies may cause a war with the U.S., but they felt that they were vital to defeating the French. By discouraging the Native Americans from attacking, they were just trying to not make it even worse.

That's pretty much it. Although, you might say they were trying to avoid a different war. The British felt they had no choice but to continue their maritime policies. And indeed, the British (as opposed to Canadian colonists) viewed the war as a footnote to the War of 1812. Hickey quotes one British scholar as saying it was "the always peripheral American conflict," and Roosevelt as saying in 1900, that Britain "knows little or nothing about the war."

Indian policy was far less relevant to the Napoleonic Wars, and it wasn't worth the cost of assisting the Indians against the U.S.

I guess I have a hard time believing that the British were truly worried about a war with America based upon their flagrantly offensive behavior,

I don't think they were "worried." They just didn't want to have to devote money, troops, and weapons to defend the Indians. It's not as if they saw that war as a threat--more of a distraction to be avoided.

especially not making sure (intentionally?) that the sailors they impressed were British citizens or at the very least naturalized Britons

2. Berton points out that it was sort of hard to tell them apart. They looked alike, and spoke the same language and all.


Please feel free to ignore any or all of the following questions, especially if they would be time consuming to answer. Anything that is answered does not have to be in order or in complete sentences and yes or no would suffice for some questions.


Instead of answering these questions I'll refer you to a couple of good resources:

Press gangs:

http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside7.html
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/grub/press.htm

Impressment:

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/backg...r_impress.html
http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/backg...t_impress.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h456.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment

N.A.M. Roger. The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy.

Also, Hickey notes that the Royal Navy got around 50% of its seamen from impressment during this era and had about 500 desertions a month.

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by kjkolb

I guess I have a hard time believing that the British were truly worried about a war with America based upon their flagrantly offensive behavior, especially not making sure (intentionally?) that the sailors they impressed were British citizens or at the very least naturalized Britons.

I think there was a fair bit of 'if you're not with us you're against us' attitude floating around. France was trying to destroy England by strangling its trade - now the French navy couldn't do much but French privateers could, and the French army could and did do a lot to prevent continental Europe from trading with England. So, if a third party is (A) trading with the enemy, and (B) sheltering Royal Navy deserters in their merchant marine, what do you think an appropriate course of action would be? Think like a superpower that doesn't much care what others think of it, but only about its own interests. You know, like a modern American. I kid! (sorta)

You said that impressment was the only way to maintain their navy. Do you mean the impressment of British citizens, naturalized Britons and those born in the U.S. or just the first one or two?

There are two issues wrt to impressment. The first is that the RN claimed that there were RN deserters on US merchant vessels. Most likely there were some. The RN believed that in order to cut down on manpower losses through desertion, they needed to be able to drag these guys back into service and make examples of them. The second issue is that they were just chronically short on manpower, especially trained manpower. If you've read Forrester or O'Brian, you'll know that captains of the day were responsible for obtaining the crew for their ship. The primary tool for doing this was the press gang, where the crew (those that could be trusted not to desert) would go ashore and abduct anyone they could find who looked like they might have some sailing ability (or even not, if they were desperate) and induct them into service. If a captain was ordered to put to sea before he had sufficient crew, it is unlikely that he would concern himself overmuch with the nationality of the crew of a ship he was stopping when he pressed some of them in order to fill out his crew. This is essentially what the RN meant when it said the pressing of Americans was "unintentional". It wasn't RN policy to do so, but it placed its captains under great stress to obtain crewmembers, and those captains had varying scruples about whether American citizens might be obliged to serve on board His Majesty's ships.

Why did they need so many sailors if France had a crappy navy and if they were no longer blockading the U.S.? I know they were also blockading France, but still. With the end of the U.S. blockade, the likely small amount of deaths in battle (if France's navy sucked) and the sailors already impressed, it seems like they would not have needed to continue the impressment of new sailors.

Losses in battle weren't particularly relevant. The vast majority of losses were to illness and accidents, followed by desertions. Blockading France was no trivial task when added to the everyday demands of supporting the Empire, especially when it was necessary to maintain sufficient concentrations of force to respond should the French fleet put to sea and elude the blockade squadrons (as happened prior to Trafalgar). The French navy was poorly led and trained compared to the Royal Navy, but its ships were as good or better, and couldn't be taken lightly. Moreover, the threat wasn't just from the French navy but from French privateers, who generally weren't poorly led and trained, and who were sufficient threat to British shipping to cause considerable concern. During the Napoleonic War, the RN vastly increased not only its numbers of commissioned ships of the line and frigates, but also smaller vessels (sloops, mostly) to act as escorts and pirate/privateer chasers. All those ships required a lot of manpower, especially trained manpower, and there just weren't enough experienced sailors to go around.

How did they decide who was British? Did the blockade of the U.S. before it ended or the impressment of non-British citizens do the British any good? Did the British force all British sailors into service, whether they were on American ships, British ships or on land? If not, why? What about British citizens who were not sailors? Were Canadians, sailors or not, impressed as well? What percentage of British sailors on warships were non-British citizens being impressed? Were there any mutinies or sabotage by impressed sailors? Did they limit impressed sailors access to weapons? Thank you very much.

I'm not sure about most of this. Precisely who would have been impressed would have depended greatly on how desperate a particular captain was for more crew. I believe there were a few mutinies during the time period, including one large scale mutiny in the Channel Fleet (?) if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. Sailors in general didn't have access to weapons, unless you count the main guns. Pikes and cutlesses would be handed out if boarding actions were in the offing, but the Marines onboard were usually the only ones armed.

It's been a while since I read up on this subject, so some of this might be misremembered and such. Hopefully Gfactor can correct anything needing it.

[Raguleader]

Hey, random question, what did the Marines do when they weren't fighting or guarding stuff? Did they have their own duties in sailing the ship, or did they mostly just sit in the corner and play cards?

[Bookkeeper]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Hey, random question, what did the Marines do when they weren't fighting or guarding stuff? Did they have their own duties in sailing the ship, or did they mostly just sit in the corner and play cards?

They drilled, polished their gear, and helped out the sailors (they were regarded by the crew as ignorant of nautical knowledge but useful as extra muscle for simple stuff like pulling on a line).

With regards to impressment of US citizens, note that the British had different ideas about who was subject to impressment (which was a form of the draft). From their point of view, naturalization by some other country of a British-born sailor did not change his birth status as a British subject who could be impressed. There were also numerous real British seamen who obtained false papers of American citizenship, either forgeries or by bribing American consuls in foreign ports. The Royal Navy was well aware of the traffic in false papers and were frequently less than scrupulous in attempting to separate the real from the false. Matters were not helped by the US frequently claiming that even holders of false papers were under US protection. It was as much about the perceived humiliation of being forced to stop and allow the British to inspect their cargoes and crews as anything.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

They drilled, polished their gear, and helped out the sailors (they were regarded by the crew as ignorant of nautical knowledge but useful as extra muscle for simple stuff like pulling on a line).

Importantly, they also guarded stuff like the booze and the firearms locker, etc from the enlisted men.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

Do you mean Britain's war-related ambitions? Or did Britain have its eyes on the port anyway?

The ambitions were war-related inasmuch as the war gave the British all the excuse they needed to try to seize the city. But if the British had won the Battle of New Orleans I don't believe they would have readily ceded such a valuable asset back to the US.

In other words, I suspect the British very much coveted a port on the Mississippi, both to control commerce and to facilitate communications (and military alliance) with Indian nations in the American interior. But I don't think the British would have moved against New Orleans except for the outbreak of the war.

[DSYoungEsq]

A discussion of the War of 1812 without mention of the Battle of Lake Erie?




For shame.



But a very nice report, Gfactor!!


I've never heard it called a "victory" for the U.S. Indeed, usually the way our effort at "war" is phrased is that, prior to Viet Nam, we had never "lost" a war; it's the War of 1812 that forces that phraseology for the most part.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

A discussion of the War of 1812 without mention of the Battle of Lake Erie?

Aw. Sorry. For those interested, the Wiki is pretty good on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie

But a very nice report, Gfactor!!

Thanks.

[dtilque]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

And I, for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords.

Not after we gave them a stinging defeat¹ in the Pig War...


¹By a score of 1 pig to none.

[Raguleader]

Pork: The Other Great White North Meat

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

I've never heard it called a "victory" for the U.S.

Americans at the time certainly hailed it as a victory. The Battle of New Orleans enabled them to do so. They had, in this view of things, proven themselves a nation worthy of respect and secure in its independence, by defeating in the field a British expeditionary force comprising some of the finest professional soldiers in the world.

Here's how Robert Remini described the response to Andrew Jackson's victory in The Battle of New Orleans:

Washington exploded with cries of delight. People thronged the streets, shouting and singing and praising Providence for the nation's deliverance. They thronged about the President's residence, surged to the homes of the secretaries, and filled the air with shouts of "huzza." The mayor recommended the illumination of the city. That evening the town blazed with light....

In fact, Americans in the first half of the 19th century [believed] that January 8 would be remembered like July 4 -- both dates representing the nation's first and second declaration of independence from Great Britain. Indeed, some called the War of 1812 the Second War for Independence. Generally speaking, widespread observance of January 8 as a day of national celebration continued for the next fifty years, with parades and toasts in most major cities....

[When news arrived of the Treaty of Ghent:] This electrifying announcement seemed so unexpected and so joyful that men ran through the streets screaming, "Peace! Peace! Peace!" The same cry echoed from town to town. Parades were organized and men and women marched through the streets carrying lighted torches and lamps and weeping with pride and happiness that this frightful war had at last been concluded.

And concluded magnificently! Concluded with a display of arms that any nation on earth would be proud to claim. Never mind that the battle occurred after the peace treaty had been signed; never mind that the treaty failed to address many of the issues that had produced the war. The nation had escaped with its independence intact and had achieved its first truly triumphant military victory. "Who is not proud to feel himself an American," cried Charles J. Ingersoll on the floor of the House of Representatives, "--our wrongs revenged -- our rights recognized!"

Recall, too, that this war gave us "The Star Spangled Banner," hardly a paean to defeat.

It is hard for us to appreciate today just how tenuous and weak the experimental enterprise known as the "United States" had seemed prior to the war, or the importance to the American psyche of securing the western frontier against European interference and against the threat posed by Tecumseh and his followers.

[Spoke]

And of course, we do still celebrate January 8. Just for different reasons.

TCB. (Taking Care of the British.)

[PanderWee]

Curious that no one on this thread is visibly Canadian, nor has cited Pierre Berton's two thick tomes on the War of 1812. The gist of it-- conventional wisdom up here in Chilly Beach country-- is that the war "created" Canada psychologically, preventing the U.S. from ever expanding north. As to the all-important win-lose, I may have to dig Up H. L. Mencken's sneer that the U. S. would have been thoroughly drubbed without Napoleon's help (in a sharp satire on American military incompetence which mentions everything from French help in the Revolutionary War to America's late jump on weakened enemies in both World Wars--I'm guessing the essay is "On Being an American").
(Trivia note: HLM was born in Baltimore on Sept. 12, Defender's Day, another War of 1812 leftover).
Anyhoo, I hope none of the above causes any purple faces, especially since Bush Baby is talking aloud about a New Berlin Wall along the 49th (Checkpoint Charlie at Windsor-Detroit?) Try to remember our countries are shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan and this is mostly an academic question.
PS: My absolute first post, by the way. Please don't kill me!
PPS: The intellectual level here does seem a little higher than at the Nights with Alice Cooper site. I might just pay the Straight Dope price at the end of my free month... hmm... you don't suppose a stinking rich guy like Alice might subsidize this site, do you? The NwAC site seems to have GOBS of memory and few technical problems, not to mention he shares a possible overlap with his Freaky Factoids feature. Try to cadge something off him, why don't you?

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by PanderWee

Curious that no one on this thread is visibly Canadian, nor has cited Pierre Berton's two thick tomes on the War of 1812.

You mean other than me, right? And I talked about Berton in the report.

By the way: Welcome to the SDMB.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by PanderWee

PS: My absolute first post, by the way. Please don't kill me!
PPS: The intellectual level here does seem a little higher than at the Nights with Alice Cooper site. I might just pay the Straight Dope price at the end of my free month

Welcome. Please do join. We have plenty of dudes from the Great White North, but more is always good.

So, Gfactor, can we agree that at least the War resulted in a nice and valuable increase in USA national pride and international respect? Wars are always won or lost by just territory, you know!

Thus, the USA can claim a (mild) moral victory anyway. But certainly the Canadians have cause for pride, too.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

You mean other than me, right? And I talked about Berton in the report.

By the way, I want to thank Northern Piper for his help. He's the one who told me about Berton's work. He also read an early draft of the report and gave me his perspective as a Canadian. Thanks Northern Piper!

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by PanderWee

I may have to dig Up H. L. Mencken's sneer that the U. S. would have been thoroughly drubbed without Napoleon's help (in a sharp satire on American military incompetence which mentions everything from French help in the Revolutionary War to America's late jump on weakened enemies in both World Wars

Well, not really on topic for this thread, but I'd just like to point out that waiting to join the two World Wars until we were more likely to win is hardly military incompetance. Also, IIRC the main thing was that at the time, the US didn't want to get involved in European wars (a long standing foreign policy that more or less ended with WWII). Both times the US joined only when one of the Central/Axis powers threatened the US directly (WWI with the Zimmerman Note, Germany encouraging Mexico to invade the US, and WWII with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, and the German and Italian declarations of war on the US on December 11th).

In the case of WWI, we joined very near to the end and arguably secured an Allied victory (the Germans were in a sorry state in 1917, but I understand the Allies had all sorts of problems of their own by then), in WWII, we joined after the opening acts, but were in it for most of the rest, after having been supporting the allies with supplies and equipment for the first part of the war.

Back to the War of 1812, if it hadn't been for Napolean tying up most of the Crown's forces, yeah, we probably would have gotten our asses kicked (more). But then, if it weren't for Napolean (or more accurately, the French Revolutionaries to begin with) stirring up trouble with England, we would have had that much less of a reason to go to war with them to *begin* with.

[PanderWee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanderWee
Curious that no one on this thread is visibly Canadian, nor has cited Pierre Berton's two thick tomes on the War of 1812.

Originally Posted by Gfactor

You mean other than me, right? And I talked about Berton in the report.

By the way: Welcome to the SDMB.

Thank you, and thanks all. Might be more than I deserve for the quick skim of the thread followed by incendiaries (didn't even read the lead article preceding the thread! ).
Moreover a second check locates two obvious Canucks entwined --although our correspondent in "Toontown" (=Saskatoon, I'm pretty sure) should consider that some folks at SDMB might locate him in the South Korean city where The Simpsons is put together.
Anyway, a hell of a refresher course on the subject and quite an eye-opener on the peripherals. Thanks all again. Love them books, love them citations! I won't even get into how "The Star-Spangled Banner" rather slathers the poetry upon a massive defeat that left only a tattered flag standing. Really I won't!
PS: Also very good to hear our local gang Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie quoted, albeit international relations were probably furthered by not quoting their line about how the Americans ran like girls. That would have started another w... oops!