# Did Canada win the War of 1812? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [July 1, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866 "2016-07-01T14:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/41 "2016-07-13T18:56:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > …[U.S.] Victories included the Tippecanoe battles, the battle at Fallen Timbers, the two sieges of Fort Miegs, the retaking of Mackinac Island, the two defenses of Sackett’s Harbor, the Battle of the Thames, various battles at Plattsburgh, etc… As an Ohioan, I feel compelled to add Commodore Perry’s big win in the Battle of Lake Erie: [Battle of Lake Erie - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/42 "2016-07-13T19:03:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I see you go back to that–but the point remains, there is no clear evidence it was an “aggressive war to take territory.” The U.S. started the war, but wars aren’t always fought over territory. We fought a war against the Barbary pirates, and did seize territory during the war–but never with an intention of “taking” territory. > > We actually seized territory in the War of 1812 as well (as did the British.) I go back to thinking that while a strong contingent of the Western War Hawks did legitimately want Canada, I really don’t know how we can ignore the Commander-in-Chiefs words on the matter. In our system of government it’s the President who decides on war strategy. > > Madison made a “recommendation” (albeit he concludes it by hemming and hawing around politically exposing himself with a formal recommendation) you can read [here](http://millercenter.org/president/madison/speeches/speech-3614), and it exclusively talks about naval issues. Additionally Madison actually asserts that Great Britain is already waging war against the United States, that the U.S. is at peace but Britain is waging war against it. In the later declaration of war itself, the document even uses that phrasing, saying that it is declared “to exist” between the two countries. (The DOW is short and found [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_the_United_Kingdom).) Well, of course you would not really expect the President of the United States to say something like “Those damned Brits are occupied in a war to the knife with Nappy - why don’t we just take whatever we can from them in the North and West when their backs are turned? Who’s with me now?” - would you? Naturally, they will make the case that the US is just defending itself and its just rights. As it happened, the major irritants du jour were naval, so those are the justifications that got trotted out. Only to be conveniently forgotten when the war ended. But as you know, naval matters did not really matter a damn to the War Hawks who were pushing for the war. If it was up to Madison, the war would not have happened at all. > [@](#): > > I agree Canada “may” have been in peril of conquest, but I think the risk of that was very small. I think while you can certainly argue that the U.S. may have attempted to keep Canada had it conquered it, that is highly speculative. Whether the US meant to take Canada forever, or use it as a “bargaining chip” isn’t really material to this particular issue - fact is, the US invaded Canada to take it for _some reason_, and that invasion simply wasn’t a success. Some territory was gained, but some was lost - it was a wash. The invading country failed its ostensible war aim - namely, a successful invasion. No territory was gained, no “bargaining chip” even. > [@](#): > > This is one part of the War of 1812 I have studied extensively–and I’ve never found a single official document or record of a speech in which a member of the _administration_ advocated for or indicated a plan to conquer Canada. I’m aware of several Congressional speeches to that effect–and statements of Madison indicating a desire to seize Canadian territory temporarily, but only for leverage. Again, if it was up to Madison the war would not have happened - and in any event, no “bargaining chip” was gained. Fact is, the Administration wasn’t really driving the bus on this war, so you have to look beyond the administration to understand why it was fought and what its true aims were. There is no doubt that British naval high-handedness worsened relations and handed the Hawks a ready-made excuse for fighting. But equally, there is no doubt that the timing of the fight was awfully convenient (that is, while the Brits were in the War with Nappy neck-deep with nothing to spare for the colonies), that the “War Hawks” who were really motivating things were thinking more of expansion of the US than they were or matters naval, and that the President was dragooned into the fight against his own inclinations. As for “no plans to conquer Canada” - what were US armies doing invading across the border? They were not there for their health, but to drive the Brits out, to defeat them. What is that, if not a conquest? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/43 "2016-07-13T19:17:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > It’s speculative because, as you say they would pay off the fleet and downsize when they weren’t at war, but would be right back impressing again when and if they did need more sailors. Yes, the end of the NW meant a downsize…that’s not speculative. But it IS speculative to say that this meant the RN would never do so again against US sailors or citizens down the line. Basically, the war of 1812 stopped that practice for all time. No, it didn’t. The end of the Napoleonic Wars ended the practice of impressment, period. Even if your theory was correct - how exactly would the Brits being deterred from impressing Yanks cause the Brits to not impress - other Brits? That makes no sense. Yet the practice, in effect if not in law, ended after the Wars. > [@](#): > > British impressment ended, in practice but not law after 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.[22] In 1835 legislation was passed exempting seamen who had been pressed and subsequently served for more than five years from further impressment. The practice had however fallen into abeyance well before that date, although the opportunity was taken to state that the Crown still had the right of impressment if necessary. In 1853 a new system of fixed-term engagements gave the Royal Navy a sufficient number of volunteer recruits to meet its manpower needs until World War I, when conscription was used for all the military services. In the intervening period, with much reduced manpower needs and improved conditions of service, the navy was able to rely on voluntary enlistment, plus the recall of reservists when necessary, to meet its requirements. > **[Impressment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#End_of_impressment)** > > Impressment, colloquially "the press" or the "press gang", is a type of conscription of men into a military force, especially a naval force, via intimidation and physical coercion, conducted by an organized group (hence "gang"). European navies of several nations used impressment by various means. The large size of the British Royal Navy in the Age of Sail meant impressment was most commonly associated with Great Britain and Ireland. It was used by the Royal Navy in wartime, beginning in 1664 ... The War of 1812 did not end impressment - it died a natural death, and clearly would have even if the War of 1812 never happened. > [@](#): > > It’s also hindsight…since the then preyed upon US sailors and citizens and US government didn’t know that the NW were going to end, or that the RN would be paying off and downsizing their force, and that, assuming they survived the inhuman conditions in the RN fleet and the various actions presumably those impressed sailors and citizens of the US would then be free to go home. In theory. I have no idea how this adds to your point, which I understood to be that the War of 1812 was a victory because it ended impressment. In my mind, you are mistaking correlation with causation. You are also apparently conflating the alleged cause of the war with its results. The War of 1812 ended at around the same time as the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Compared with the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 was a pimple to a gushing wound. The end of the Napoleonic Wars brought with it the end of the Brits straining every nerve to increase the size of their fleets - and so, an end to impressment, which was never thereafter used. The next war that really required the Brits to strain every nerve to increase their navy was - WW1. > [@](#): > > I think they were arrogant enough to feel that the US should do what we were told. And I think that this isn’t something they substantially changed until after their empire started to unravel after WWI. > > It was both a moral and physical victory for the US, IMHO. It consolidated the country. It opened the way for southern and western expansion. It solidified the fact that we WERE our own nation, and that we were free to trade as we liked and our citizens were not open to impressment by foreign powers. Likewise Canada won. The British, for who this was a side show won as well, since they defeated Bony, solidified their place at that time as THE per-eminent super power on the planet, and set the stage for a much expanded and more powerful US who was not continental in size to normalize relationships and even come to the aid of the old mother country in it’s time of need. Like I said, the only losers were the native peoples, who got fucked (well, and Spain, who we swiped a bunch of land from, first in Florida and later in the south west). > > Horseshit. And when one of the parties was playing passive aggressive dominance games, getting them to back the fuck off and stop playing them and treating you like a real nation IS a win. That all relies on accepting a good deal of your say-so about British motivations. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/44 "2016-07-13T19:48:05Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] No, it didn’t. The end of the Napoleonic Wars ended the practice of impressment, period. [/QUOTE] Most of that probably had more to do with there was no need for the RN to impress sailors at the rate they were doing during the NW, but ok…I concede the point. I actually was looking it up when you posted and had found the same Wiki link. > [@](#): > > Even if your theory was correct - how exactly would the Brits being deterred from impressing Yanks cause the Brits to not impress - other Brits? That wasn’t my point…apparently you didn’t get it, but it seems moot so I’ll just move on. > [@](#): > > I have no idea how this adds to your point, which I understood to be that the War of 1812 was a victory because it ended impressment. My point was that, from the US’s perspective it ended a foreign power being able to impress OUR CITIZENS. That the RN decided to end them for it’s own was probably of supreme indifference to us. But if they ended it after the NW anyway, it certainly means that, regardless of the outcome they would have stopped impressing our people. So, ok…I concede the point. I think the others are still valid. And it was still a very sore subject from our perspective and one of the major irritation points in why the US went to war. That the point became moot in hindsight perhaps simply means that the Brits saw the error of their ways. 😛 Or, as you point out, they just didn’t have any more enemies in their weight class to fight after France went down. It was a relatively peaceful time in Europe (one of the few), and left the Brits time to play around with the rest of their empire. > [@](#): > > That all relies on accepting a good deal of your say-so about British motivations. As your assertions rely on your own interpretations of Rah Rah AMERICA! Fuck Yeah! motivations for thinking that the US gained from the war as well. You seem fixated on the fact we didn’t annex Canada as the primary reason we ‘lost’ and they ‘won’, but in fact that wasn’t our own over arching goal. We got the Brits to stop impressing our citizens (yeah, they did that anyway), we got a pretty much free hand without continued interference in our southerns and western expansion and an end to the Brits supporting native tribes against us, we got an open hand wrt our trade and British restrictions…and we got treated as a full nation state. To me, that’s a draw by any reasonable standards. It’s certainly not a loss. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/45 "2016-07-13T20:08:48Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Most of that probably had more to do with there was no need for the RN to impress sailors at the rate they were doing during the NW, but ok…I concede the point. I actually was looking it up when you posted and had found the same Wiki link. > > That wasn’t my point…apparently you didn’t get it, but it seems moot so I’ll just move on. > > My point was that, from the US’s perspective it ended a foreign power being able to impress OUR CITIZENS. That the RN decided to end them for it’s own was probably of supreme indifference to us. But if they ended it after the NW anyway, it certainly means that, regardless of the outcome they would have stopped impressing our people. So, ok…I concede the point. I think the others are still valid. And it was still a very sore subject from our perspective and one of the major irritation points in why the US went to war. That the point became moot in hindsight perhaps simply means that the Brits saw the error of their ways. 😛 Or, as you point out, they just didn’t have any more enemies in their weight class to fight after France went down. It was a relatively peaceful time in Europe (one of the few), and left the Brits time to play around with the rest of their empire. > > As your assertions rely on your own interpretations of Rah Rah AMERICA! Fuck Yeah! motivations for thinking that the US gained from the war as well. You seem fixated on the fact we didn’t annex Canada as the primary reason we ‘lost’ and they ‘won’, but in fact that wasn’t our own over arching goal. We got the Brits to stop impressing our citizens (yeah, they did that anyway), we got a pretty much free hand without continued interference in our southerns and western expansion and an end to the Brits supporting native tribes against us, we got an open hand wrt our trade and British restrictions…and we got treated as a full nation state. To me, that’s a draw by any reasonable standards. It’s certainly not a loss. While I do think that the US wished to expand to the North as well as to the West (and really, why would it not?), my point isn’t that the US lost because it failed to “annex Canada”. My point is that even conceding for the sake of argument that the US did _not_ wish to annex Canada, but only invaded to gain Canada as a “bargaining chip” for concessions elsewhere - that even putting the US case at its highest, it still failed to win. The invasions were overall unsuccessful, Canada was not seized as a “bargaining chip”, and so the war was a failure in gaining its ostensible goals. When one country wages a war of aggression and invades a neighboring territory to take it (no matter whether to hold it forever, or to gain points for later negotiations), and “fails to win”, it has lost. No doubt the war had all sorts of psychological impact on both the US or Canada, but that is essentially irrelevant to the question of who won or lost. Now, the argument can be made that the War acted as a valuable deterrent, in deterring the Brits from helping the native Americans who were exposed to being despoiled by the Yanks. As with impressment, I rather suspect this is a moot point. The Americans were so much more powerful than the natives, this was a war the natives were bound to lose - unless the Brits supported them with military force: which would have led to a war, 1812-style. I see no evidence that the Brits were willing to risk that, and as the 19th century wore on, the Yanks only became more powerful, and the Brits consequently less likely to risk a major war for their native allies. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/46 "2016-07-13T20:17:26Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] My point is that even conceding for the sake of argument that the US did _not_ wish to annex Canada, but only invaded to gain Canada as a “bargaining chip” for concessions elsewhere - that even putting the US case at its highest, it still failed to win. The invasions were overall unsuccessful, Canada was not seized as a “bargaining chip”, and so the war was a failure in gaining its ostensible goals. When one country wages a war of aggression and invades a neighboring territory to take it (no matter whether to hold it forever, or to gain points for later negotiations), and “fails to win”, it has lost. [/QUOTE] Except, again, that wasn’t our goal. It wasn’t even a primary goal. The main goal was to get the British to leave us the fuck alone, to stop impressing our citizens, to stop screwing with our trade and to stop supporting the native tribes and hindering our expansion south and westward. Taking Canada away from the Brits was one of the few things we could see in achieving those ACTUAL goals, since we couldn’t exactly go head to head with the RN in a set piece battle…and we couldn’t exactly invade the home islands. I’m not sure why this logic escapes you, or that you think that taking Canada was our primary goal…or why you think that the US was the aggressor here. We went to war because of the British actions…we sent a delegation to the UK to try and do this without a war, and basically they ignored us. Even though we didn’t take Canada, we achieved our actual war aims…the British left us alone from then on, they stopped screwing with our trade, and they stopped supporting native tribes and impeding our expansion. I’m sure that if we had taken Canada and somehow held it that would have been a bonus…but it was hardly our main aim. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/47 "2016-07-13T20:35:12Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Except, again, that wasn’t our goal. It wasn’t even a primary goal. The main goal was to get the British to leave us the fuck alone, to stop impressing our citizens, to stop screwing with our trade and to stop supporting the native tribes and hindering our expansion south and westward. Taking Canada away from the Brits was one of the few things we could see in achieving those ACTUAL goals, since we couldn’t exactly go head to head with the RN in a set piece battle…and we couldn’t exactly invade the home islands. I’m not sure why this logic escapes you, or that you think that taking Canada was our primary goal…or why you think that the US was the aggressor here. We went to war because of the British actions…we sent a delegation to the UK to try and do this without a war, and basically they ignored us. > > Even though we didn’t take Canada, we achieved our actual war aims…the British left us alone from then on, they stopped screwing with our trade, and they stopped supporting native tribes and impeding our expansion. I’m sure that if we had taken Canada and somehow held it that would have been a bonus…but it was hardly our main aim. My point is pretty simple: none of those goals required, for its achievement, the war. The war was supposed to achieve those goals by taking Canada. Canada was never taken. The goals were achieved, but what evidence exists demonstrates that they would have been achieved anyway, war or no. The war was lost by the US, but that loss had no impact on the ostensible “goals”, because achieving those goals depended on factors completely outside the ambit of the war. There was never any possibility that the Brits would successfully take over the US, or that they would keep an enormous navy in existence, or that they would keep blockading Europe indefinitely, which is what would have been necessary to avoid those goals from being met. This is like arguing that a particular war was necessary to keep the Earth in its orbit, and then proclaiming it must have been “won” no matter the outcome of its battles, because the Earth remains in its orbit, doesn’t it? Of course the US was the “aggressor”. They were the ones who went to war. The British did not want a war, and they certainly did not want it _then_, when they were busy fighting Nappy. Every war in history, the “aggressor” has some sort of reasons for. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/48 "2016-07-13T20:52:45Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] My point is pretty simple: none of those goals required, for its achievement, the war. [/QUOTE] Obviously Madison et al disagreed with your hindsight assessment. I disagree with them as well, even knowing how things played out. > [@](#): > > The war was supposed to achieve those goals by taking Canada. No…Canada was simply one of the places we could get at the British. What we wanted to do was force the British to stop doing the things they were doing to us. > [@](#): > > Canada was never taken. The goals were achieved, but what evidence exists demonstrates that they would have been achieved anyway, war or no. What evidence do you give that all of those goals would have been achieved without the war? It’s not like the British had a good track record of conceding things like those that put the US at odds with them, especially with former colonies. Using your 20/20 hindsight, what evidence do you have that the British would have left our trade alone and allowed us our westward and southern expansion had there been no war? Perhaps it’s the history of tolerance and generosity they displayed in India? > [@](#): > > The war was lost by the US, but that loss had no impact on the ostensible “goals”, because achieving those goals depended on factors completely outside the ambit of the war. The war was a ‘loss’ to you because you are fixated on the US having to take Canada to ‘win’. You are obviously going to remain fixated on that regardless, so there doesn’t seem much more point in this back and forth. I don’t believe that taking Canada was a first tier goal of the US in the 1812 war…it was something that would have been nice, and it was one of the few ways we could actually get at the British to get them to pay attention to our list of issues. It had the desired effect…they paid attention. It had the desired effect…they stopped being ass hats (and allowed us to be the ass hats wrt the native peoples as the gods intended :p). > [@](#): > > Of course the US was the “aggressor”. They were the ones who went to war. The British did not want a war, and they certainly did not want it _then_, when they were busy fighting Nappy. Every war in history, the “aggressor” has some sort of reasons for. This is like saying that if I bully you, take your lunch money, tell you what you can or can’t do, that you’d be the aggressor if you punched me in the nose. Technically true, but kind of an un-nuanced view point of the situation. No, the British didn’t want a war with the US…they wanted us to behave, to accept what they told us, trade with who they said we could and not with who they didn’t want us to and do as they told us and just take it while they got on with the important work, to them, of fighting Bony. They refused to even listen to our complaints or to modify their behavior based on them. I don’t want you to punch me in the nose simply because I want to take your lunch money or I tell you what to do, either…but you’d still be justified in doing so to get my attention and make me stop doing those things. YMMV, of course (obviously it does). _shrug_ ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/49 "2016-07-13T22:08:32Z")
Well, under modern international law blockades are illegal. Britain was essentially conducting a blockade against the European continent and essentially blocking American trading ships from free use of the sees. When they would stop and impress American sailors, that would also be against international norms. While we didn’t have formal international law in the early 19th century, I’d say under standards of the day America had _casus belli_, and in many respects Britain essentially _was_ already waging war against the United States, albeit at a low level. The arming of native tribes being another matter. My view of the War of 1812 is it was a bit of a boondoggle and unnecessary for a lot of reasons. But I can’t really view it as Britain being the innocent aggrieved party and America being a reckless cow boy picking a fight. I’ve always viewed it as a strategic draw, with many tactical losses (but some victories)–since conquest of Canada wasn’t a war aim I only view the failure to occupy it as a failed objective, not as a “loss” in the war. That’s like saying since Operation Market Garden was a failure we lost WW2. The stated U.S. war aim was to end harassment of its ships on the high seas–and Britain essentially did that unilaterally in 1814 before the war was over, which made the whole exercise pointless, which goes back to why I view it as a strategic draw. The only group I’ve ever seen seriously argue it was a victory for anyone was Americans who didn’t know what it was about and think we “saved ourselves from British invasion” or Canadians who view it as akin to their Revolutionary War that guaranteed Canadian independence from America. I think while it was a strategic draw for the United States it had some long term serious benefits. A big one was it instilled a deep appreciation in the importance of naval power, and the U.S. Navy has long since been a significant focus of the United States. It was instrumental in our ability to strangle the Confederacy, for example, in the ACW. While the U.S. Army was historically left very small and incapable by European standards, our Navy was sufficient to any task before it pretty much from the 19th century all the way up to the present, and I think the War of 1812 was at least part of why even when we weren’t keen to invest in standing armies we usually kept our navy in pretty good shape. It also largely ended British engagement with natives fighting U.S. encroachment, largely leading to us being able to more easily settle the Louisiana Purchase territories–the rapidity with which we did so making it so we could also settle the far West/Pacific as well. It’s not impossible this would’ve have happened without the War of 1812, but it may have happened later on, at which point situations could have played out differently (perhaps some other European power would have held a firmer grip on areas west of the Louisiana Purchase–possibly Britain.) Some of the most devastating battles of 1812 were the clashes between the United States and Britain’s Native Allies, many of them wiped out the fighting forces (fighting age young men) of native tribes for an entire generation, which had a major impact even if Britain had kept arming them afterward. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/50 "2016-07-14T00:42:47Z")
The US still had phantasies about annexing Canada even in McKinley’s day. How could the Canadians possibly _not_ want to be part of the obviously superior country? But by then it was simply a forlorn hope that the poor, oppressed colonials Up There would come to Washington, hats in hand, begging to be made the 40-somethingth state. See [https://www.csub.edu/~gsantos/img0004.html](https://www.csub.edu/~gsantos/img0004.html) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/51 "2016-07-14T14:04:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, under modern international law blockades are illegal. Britain was essentially conducting a blockade against the European continent and essentially blocking American trading ships from free use of the sees. When they would stop and impress American sailors, that would also be against international norms. While we didn’t have formal international law in the early 19th century, I’d say under standards of the day America had _casus belli_, and in many respects Britain essentially _was_ already waging war against the United States, albeit at a low level. The arming of native tribes being another matter. > > My view of the War of 1812 is it was a bit of a boondoggle and unnecessary for a lot of reasons. But I can’t really view it as Britain being the innocent aggrieved party and America being a reckless cow boy picking a fight. > > I’ve always viewed it as a strategic draw, with many tactical losses (but some victories)–since conquest of Canada wasn’t a war aim I only view the failure to occupy it as a failed objective, not as a “loss” in the war. That’s like saying since Operation Market Garden was a failure we lost WW2. The stated U.S. war aim was to end harassment of its ships on the high seas–and Britain essentially did that unilaterally in 1814 before the war was over, which made the whole exercise pointless, which goes back to why I view it as a strategic draw. The only group I’ve ever seen seriously argue it was a victory for anyone was Americans who didn’t know what it was about and think we “saved ourselves from British invasion” or Canadians who view it as akin to their Revolutionary War that guaranteed Canadian independence from America. > > I think while it was a strategic draw for the United States it had some long term serious benefits. A big one was it instilled a deep appreciation in the importance of naval power, and the U.S. Navy has long since been a significant focus of the United States. It was instrumental in our ability to strangle the Confederacy, for example, in the ACW. While the U.S. Army was historically left very small and incapable by European standards, our Navy was sufficient to any task before it pretty much from the 19th century all the way up to the present, and I think the War of 1812 was at least part of why even when we weren’t keen to invest in standing armies we usually kept our navy in pretty good shape. It also largely ended British engagement with natives fighting U.S. encroachment, largely leading to us being able to more easily settle the Louisiana Purchase territories–the rapidity with which we did so making it so we could also settle the far West/Pacific as well. It’s not impossible this would’ve have happened without the War of 1812, but it may have happened later on, at which point situations could have played out differently (perhaps some other European power would have held a firmer grip on areas west of the Louisiana Purchase–possibly Britain.) > > Some of the most devastating battles of 1812 were the clashes between the United States and Britain’s Native Allies, many of them wiped out the fighting forces (fighting age young men) of native tribes for an entire generation, which had a major impact even if Britain had kept arming them afterward. It is simply not true that blockades are illegal under modern international law. > **[Blockade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Legal_status)** > > A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. > A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area. > A blockading ... Not that any of that necessary applied in 1812, when “international law” was considerably more rudimentary. A blockade was not typically considered a valid cause for war; the Allies, for example, blockaded Nazi Germany in WW2 prior to US involvement. The Americans were angry, but did not declare war on the Allies. > **[Blockade of Germany (1939–1945)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%80%9345))** > > The Blockade of Germany (1939–1945), also known as the Economic War, involved operations carried out during World War II by the British Empire and by France in order to restrict the supplies of minerals, fuel, metals, food and textiles needed by Nazi Germany – and later by Fascist Italy – in order to sustain their war efforts. The economic war consisted mainly of a naval blockade, which formed part of the wider Battle of the Atlantic, but also included the bombing of economically important targ... > [@](#): > > Passenger ships were also subject to Contraband Control because they carried luggage and small cargo items such as postal mail and parcels, and the Americans were particularly furious at the British insistence on opening all mail destined for Germany.[29] By 25 November 1939, 62 U.S. ships of various types had been stopped, some for as long as three weeks, and a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy took place to smooth over the political fallout. On 22 December the US State Department made a formal protest, to no avail. On 30 December the Manhattan, carrying 400 tons of small cargo, sailed from New York to deliver mail to Italy, but was stopped six days later by a British destroyer at Gibraltar. Although the captain went ashore to make a furious protest to the authorities with the American Consulate, the ship was delayed for 40 hours as British Contraband Control checked the records and ship’s manifest, eventually removing 235 bags of mail addressed to Germany. > > In the U.S., with its tradition that “the mail must always get through”, and where armed robbery of the mail carried a mandatory 25-year jail term, there were calls for mail to be carried on warships, but the exercise – as with all such journeys – was repeated on the homeward leg as Contraband Control searched the ship again for anything of value that might have been taken out of Germany. On 22 January the UK ambassador was handed a note from the State Department calling the practice ‘wholly unwarrantable’ and demanding immediate correction. But despite the British Foreign Office urging the Ministry of Economic Warfare to be cautious for fear of damaging relations with the US, the British claimed to have uncovered a nationwide US conspiracy to send clothing, jewels, securities, cash, foodstuffs, chocolate, coffee and soap to Germany through the post, and there was no climbdown. This case was in essence exactly the same: the Brits enforcing a blockade on the Americans over a war in Europe. Likewise, impressment wasn’t a reasonable cause for war. The British view, rightly or wrongly, was that they were going after deserters who simply jumped ship to US vessels. While no doubt individual captains abused this concept to simply enslave prime seamen, this could have been handled short of war. The British alliance with the native Americans is the worst case (and by far the most real of the three issues). The natives were not the ‘aggressors’ in their interactions with the Americans and were not American subjects: the Americans wanted a free hand to indulge in dispossessing and ‘ethnicly cleansing’ natives from their ancestral lands, purely for American profit: culminating in such crimes as (War of 1812 hero) Andrew Jackson’s “Trail of Tears”, one of the direst acts in US history. To claim that the Brits were the “aggressors” merely by _supporting_ the natives in this struggle is a bizarre and very 19th century version of these events. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/52 "2016-07-14T16:00:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is simply not true that blockades are illegal under modern international law. > > [Blockade - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Legal_status) > > Not that any of that necessary applied in 1812, when “international law” was considerably more rudimentary. > > A blockade was not typically considered a valid cause for war; the Allies, for example, blockaded Nazi Germany in WW2 prior to US involvement. The Americans were angry, but did not declare war on the Allies. A unilaterally enforced blockade would be illegal under international law at present. This is why Kennedy called the blockade of Cuba during the CMC a “quarantine.” Since he never would’ve gotten Security Council approval (since the USSR was, obviously on it) for a blockade he essentially conducted an illegal blockade under a false pretense. The idea that blockading an entire continent (including countries that Britain herself was not even at war with necessarily), and seizing enemy ships and forcing her crews into your Navy wouldn’t be casus belli is strange to me. Just in the prior century Britain went to war in part because one of her sailors officers lost an ear in an altercation with Spanish coast guards. If one actually looks at the history of Britain’s justification for wars, or any European power’s in the contemporary period the actions of Britain in regard to America and other neutral powers would absolutely, in the norms of the time, be cause for war. Edit to Add: I actually misspoke in my original post and this one, I should not have used the word “illegal” as that carries a different meaning than that which I wish to convey. Not that blockades are illegal (like a war crime), but rather that blockades are “acts of war”, giving the aggrieved a valid cause of war. I hope that clarifies what I meant there–not saying Britain’s blockade would be “illegal” under modern law, but that it would give the blockaded parties or injured third parties valid cause of war, since a blockade is itself an act of war. If Kennedy had started a “blockade” of Cuba without Security Council approval it’d have been akin to starting a war without said approval (which the U.S. and others have done), which isn’t an “illegal” action (although many argued it was when Bush invaded Iraq.) But the blockading of a country is an act of war. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/53 "2016-07-14T17:10:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > A unilaterally enforced blockade would be illegal under international law at present. This is why Kennedy called the blockade of Cuba during the CMC a “quarantine.” Since he never would’ve gotten Security Council approval (since the USSR was, obviously on it) for a blockade he essentially conducted an illegal blockade under a false pretense. > > The idea that blockading an entire continent (including countries that Britain herself was not even at war with necessarily), and seizing enemy ships and forcing her crews into your Navy wouldn’t be casus belli is strange to me. Just in the prior century Britain went to war in part because one of her sailors officers lost an ear in an altercation with Spanish coast guards. > > If one actually looks at the history of Britain’s justification for wars, or any European power’s in the contemporary period the actions of Britain in regard to America and other neutral powers would absolutely, in the norms of the time, be cause for war. > > Edit to Add: I actually misspoke in my original post and this one, I should not have used the word “illegal” as that carries a different meaning than that which I wish to convey. Not that blockades are illegal (like a war crime), but rather that blockades are “acts of war”, giving the aggrieved a valid cause of war. I hope that clarifies what I meant there–not saying Britain’s blockade would be “illegal” under modern law, but that it would give the blockaded parties or injured third parties valid cause of war, since a blockade is itself an act of war. If Kennedy had started a “blockade” of Cuba without Security Council approval it’d have been akin to starting a war without said approval (which the U.S. and others have done), which isn’t an “illegal” action (although many argued it was when Bush invaded Iraq.) But the blockading of a country is an act of war. Sure, blockading a country is an act of war. What isn’t an act of war is enforcing that blockade by restricting what ships of third parties can bring into the blockaded country. At least under customary international law, a blockading nation can - quite ‘legally’ and without causing an act of war - enforce its blockade as long as it follows the ‘rules’, which are codified (at present) in the San Remo Manual - even though it is as yet unratified. It’s the usual international law muddle, but basically the Manual purports to be a mere codification of ‘customary’ law. This is why, for example, the Israeli Blockade and seizure of neutral shipping was ruled to be “legal”. [San Remo Manual - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_Manual) > [@](#): > > The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law after a series of round table discussions held between 1988 and 1994 by diplomats and naval and legal experts. It is “the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913.” [1][2] > > The manual is a legally recognized document[3] but is not binding on states. The Manual is a codification of customary international law, an integration of existing legal standards for naval conflict with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977.[4] > > Paragraph 67 of the Manual states that it is permitted for belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”. Paragraph 146 states that it is permitted to capture neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67. The term neutral waters is defined in paragraph 14: “Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States.” [5] > > The “Explanation” of Article 102 that accompanies the text of the San Remo Manual clarifies that a declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival. It also provides that a blockade is rendered unlawful if the effect on the civilian population is excessive in relation to the lawful military purpose. > > The San Remo Manual was cited by the Israeli government to justify its boarding and seizure of ships trying to break the Gaza blockade (see Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid),[6] as well as by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s international fact-finding mission to support their finding that the seizure was illegal. The fact finding mission said that the blockade itself was an illegal form of collective punishment.[7] In 2011 the UN-Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry came to the conclusion that the Gaza blockade had been legal, and recommended that Israel immediately report its use of force to the United Nations Security Council so it could find a permanent solution, as is required of Israel by the United Nations Charter.[8] So - to conclude the argument - if ‘modern international law’ was applicable in 1812, the British were not doing anything ‘illegal’ or an "act of war’ (against the US) by (1) declaring war on Napoleonic France; (2) establishing a blockade of the Napoleonic Empire; and (3) enforcing that blockade on neutral shipping, such as that of the US. Edit: “unratified” not “ungratified”! Damn you, autocorrect! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/54 "2016-07-14T17:50:18Z")
But Britain wasn’t just blockading Napoleon’s Europe, Britain was routinely stopping all U.S. shipping and “assuming” its cargo was bound for Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/55 "2016-07-14T18:11:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > But Britain wasn’t just blockading Napoleon’s Europe, Britain was routinely stopping all U.S. shipping and “assuming” its cargo was bound for Europe. The issue then is whether the Brits were enforcing their blockade ‘properly’. Not that enforcing a blockade on third parties was per se illegal or an act of war. The answer to that would depend on individual incidents. However, it is pretty obvious that ships crossing the Atlantic are likely going to Europe, if they are not headed to the UK. What irritated the Americans was British ‘high handedness’ in making them subject to British blockade restrictions (plus forcibly taking deserters, on occasion impressing Americans, etc.) Here’s an interesting account: > [@](#): > > Great Britain responded to Napoleon with a series of orders-in-council requiring all neutral ships to obtain a licence before they could sail to Europe. Since the victory of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar (21 October 1805), Great Britain had the sea power to enforce its blockade. For some 20 years the Americans grappled with the problems of being a neutral nation in the great European war. Tensions mounted as the British began stopping American ships from trading in Europe. Even more vexing was the British practice of searching American vessels for “contraband” (defined by the British as goods that they declared illegal) and of searching for deserters who had fled the harsh conditions of the Royal Navy. Many of these deserters had taken jobs on American ships and American certificates of citizenship made no impression on the British. The final straw in this perceived British arrogance was the actions of British captains to impress (seize) native-born Americans and put them into service on British ships. > > These maritime tensions exploded, literally, in 1807 off the shore of Chesapeake Bay. A British naval squadron was watching the area for French ships when several British sailors managed to desert and promptly to enlist in the American navy. The captain of the American 38-gun frigate Chesapeake knew that he had deserters on board when HMS Leopard tried to board and search his ship. When the Chesapeake refused to heave to, the 50-gun Leopard opened fire, killing three and injuring 18 of the crew. The British boarded and seized four men. This “Chesapeake Affair” outraged even temperate Americans. The actions of the British ship HMS Guerriere on 1 May 1811 in impressing an American sailor from a coastal vessel caused further tension. > > This dispute over maritime rights might have been resolved with diplomacy (in fact the new government of Lord Liverpool rescinded the orders-in-council a few days before the US declared war, though the news hadn’t yet reached America) but there were other interests at play among the Americans. Not all Americans wanted war with Great Britain, notably the merchants of New England and New York. President James Madison was intrigued by the analysis of Major General Dearborn that in the event of war, Canada would be easy pickings - that in fact an invasion would be welcomed by the Canadians. It was a war that had been loudly demanded by the “War Hawks,” a group of congressmen from the south and west, filled with anglophobia and nationalism. These republicans encouraged war as a means to retaliate against Britain for the economic distress caused by the blockade, but also for what they perceived as British machinations in encouraging the resistance of the First Nations to American expansion into the West. [Emphasis added] [http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng/Topic/2](http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng/Topic/2) Once again, it is worth pointing out that the Orders in Council establishing the blockade were rescinded _before_ the American declaration of war! So clearly, the war did not “cure” this problem. Also, demonstrates that Madison was influenced by the notion that Canada could easily be taken, and that the locals would welcome that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/56 "2016-07-15T20:26:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Once again, it is worth pointing out that the Orders in Council establishing the blockade were rescinded _before_ the American declaration of war! So clearly, the war did not “cure” this problem. Also, demonstrates that Madison was influenced by the notion that Canada could easily be taken, and that the locals would welcome that. Madison did not know that the Orders in Council had been rescinded, and said that, if had known, he would not have declared war. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/57 "2016-07-15T20:33:12Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > Madison did not know that the Orders in Council had been rescinded, and said that, if had known, he would not have declared war. The issue, though, is whether the War can be counted as a “win” for the US. The allegation made upthread was that it could, because the War ended impressment and ended British interference with American trade. My point is that the War can’t logically be credited with these achievements, as they would have occurred even had the War not happened - or, in the case of the Orders in Council, they were achieved before the War was declared. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/58 "2016-07-15T20:38:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The issue, though, is whether the War can be counted as a “win” for the US. The allegation made upthread was that it could, because the War ended impressment and ended British interference with American trade. > > My point is that the War can’t logically be credited with these achievements, as they would have occurred even had the War not happened - or, in the case of the Orders in Council, they were achieved before the War was declared. And ended British interference in US southern and westward expansion. We CAN logically credit all but one of those achievements to the war, and we don’t know that they would still have happened without the war and the subsequent flow of history. Personally, I don’t think they would have happened, at least not when and how they did. I see no reason why, without the war, Britain would have stopped supporting the native tribes and trying to block US expansion, or have allowed the US to trade when and how we wanted (having gotten blocked us to their benefit during the NWs). It’s not like the Brits were known for their magnanimous generosity wrt trade when it might impact THEIR trade to the benefit of other countries. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/59 "2016-07-15T22:37:40Z")
The best you can say about the War of 1812 is that no one really wanted it, and once it started, no one knew where to take it. The British did have plans to cut off the Western part of the U.S. for an Indian territory under British control, but they only came up with that once the war started. The U.S. wanted to stop the British from treating them as if they weren’t an independent country, but once the war started, the U.S. realized they were in deeper than they planned. The U.S. lost all of its trade during the war, and really didn’t have the funds. The British navy was pretty good at keeping the U.S. out of the Atlantic. In the end, once the Napoleon wars ended, the British realized they weren’t in position to state the terms of victory, and the U.S. realized that the war really wasn’t going anywhere and was very costly. The result: Pretty much the same situation as before. The British stopped the impressment of U.S. citizens, but they were probably going to stop anyway. The U.S. promised not to invade Canada, but that didn’t work out this time now that British Canada was full of old United Loyalists. The Great Lakes became a warship free zone and the British returned some forts they had promised to return earlier. For the U.S., it did establish a U.S. nationhood, but it wasn’t very strong. The British did decide that the U.S. has to be treated with semi-deference, but they still did whatever they wanted in the New World for almost another 70 years. And when a Canadian friend took credit for burning Washington, I told them they did a lousy job – it got rebuilt a few years later. Next time, they should try to plow salt into the earth. Of course, we didn’t do much better with Toronto. By the way, in the 1920s, both the U.S. and Canada [developed military plans to invade each other](http://nypost.com/2015/05/24/the-secret-canadian-plan-to-invade-the-us/). ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866/60 "2016-07-17T05:06:33Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > By the way, in the 1920s, both the U.S. and Canada [developed military plans to invade each other](http://nypost.com/2015/05/24/the-secret-canadian-plan-to-invade-the-us/). Damned icebacks! _Shakes fist at Canada_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-canada-win-the-war-of-1812/758866.md?page=4)