Continuing the discussion from here: Graduating from Hogwarts - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
Have at it!
We achieved some, but not all, of our war aims; ending the impressment of American sailors and establishing strong control of our territorial waters, but failing to annex Canadian territory or prevent highly damaging incursions into our own. In the long run, beginning to establish ourselves as a naval power probably mattered more than scoring Canadian territory would have.
No one came off terribly well in that war; we did okay. You can call that a win or a loss with almost equal validity.
No, they didn’t “achieve” that. Impressment ended in 1814 when Napoleon was defeated. It had nothing to do with the war of 1812.
It’s too early to say for sure.
Achiveing none of your pre war aims. Getting the capital burnt. Losing swarths of territory. Being chased off the High Seas. Yeah counts as a defeat amd a few tactical triumps do not change said fact.
The US was in no way a naval power for most of the nineteenth century. It could barely defend its own ports. The US became a Naval power from the 1890’s onwards.
Well, it had nothing to do with with the War of 1812 the Americans were embroiled in. There was a whole other War of 1812 going on in Europe with France and Russia and stuff.
I think we all remember this from The American Pageant:
Start of war: “On to Canada!”
End of war: “Not an inch of territory lost or ceded!”
It ain’t over yet, ya lousy Brit-loving Canucks, we’ll settle with you eventually . . .
We achieved all of the pre-war aims which were actually the reason for going to war. We didn’t lose any territory, and in fact gained some. We remained on the high seas, stronger than we were before. I’ll grant that the British burned Washington, but that falls into the category of “a few tactical” defeats that you dismiss, since we did, after all, manage to retake the city. We really would have liked to have conquered Canada, of course, and we didn’t succeed at that, but again, that wasn’t the primary reason for the war.
Remind us, what were those aims, and how were they achieved, exactly?
As far as I can tell, our reason for wanting a war was for the sake of having a war. So since we did have a war, in that sense we “succeeded”. Even though we accomplished little or nothing that couldn’t have been accomplished without a war.
It’s never crossed my mind that Brits would think they won that war. What did they win exactly? They managed not to lose Canada?
I’ve always considered it pretty much a draw. Unless you were an Indian, then you got screwed.
That’s pretty thorough. Bit of a side show at the time of course, what with Boney threatening invasion, etc.
When the other side starts a fight and you lose nothing, that’s a win.
Out of interest, what do you think of the **FIRST **gulf war? That is, Saddam’s attempt to invade Kuwait. It failed. He was unable to conquer the country. He was kicked out.
But, he didn’t in fact actually lose any of his own territory. He wasn’t ousted from power. He wasn’t arrested and executed. (Not in the FIRST war, anyway)
So, that’s a draw, then?
Kind of like Vietnam?
That is precisely the point for the Canadian colonists and Britain claiming victory - they managed not to lose Canada. That was their only real and long lasting war aim. The aggressive nation was repelled and no land was lost.
Conversely, the American’s lost. They attacked a country but were repelled. For similar reasons you can say Vietnam was a loss.
Of course, Americans prefer to think of the War of 1812 as a slight win–or at least a tie–on the strength of their victory at the Battle of New Orleans. However, the battle did take place two weeks after the war formally ended at the Treaty of Ghent. The combatants in North America did not know about the treaty until at least six weeks after it had been signed. Thus, one can say the American victory at the battle was the historical equivalent of a late hit.
Is that why we were forced to accept an unnecessary apostrophe in our nationality?
Among other things. 