# War of 1812 Revisionism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-1812-revisionism/531424 "2010-03-05T15:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [March 8, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-1812-revisionism/531424/61 "2010-03-08T01:10:15Z")
[QUOTE=Mk VII] I’d say New Orleans was unnecessary (and, of course, irrelevant to the outcome of the war, the treaty had already been signed but nobody knew about it yet). If it had succeeded (and it might well have done against a less capable opponent than Jackson) it might have ratcheted up the pressure a bit but hat’s all. Meanwhile President Madison’s administration was now anxious to end the war while they still had the option to do so on tolerable terms. Things could only get worse. [/QUOTE] I disagree. I don’t see any reason why, had the Brits won, they would have just blithely turned it back over to the US, treaty or no treaty. Not having paid for the place in blood and treasure. I agree, it was an unnecessary battle, considering that there had already been a peace treaty signed, but I think that it was an essential win for the US, both in terms of what the real consequences would have been had we lost, and also in terms of demonstrating that the US could, given circumstances, stand up to a European army and win a decisive victory. We has shown in several engagements that we COULD fight in a set piece fashion before (and at least hold our own given rough parity of forces on a given field), but never against a force of that magnitude. I’m not saying that it put us on par with Europe (it most certainly didn’t…we weren’t doing things on anywhere near the same scale or magnitude), but it demonstrated that we weren’t easy meat either. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-1812-revisionism/531424/62 "2010-03-08T02:14:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Portugal was a hell of a lot closer to the British Isles than Canada was. 🙂 But what difference does that make, really? Provisions are obtained locally. So long as you have the shipping capacity to get the army there, and maintain a supply of not-readily-available items (ammunition, mostly), you’re good to go. India is further away than either Portugal or Canada. > [@](#): > > True…but all of those armies had land based logistical centers, by and large, or relied on well established local towns and cities, and their local supply. Think for a minute about the difference between moving a large army through western Europe and moving that same sized army down from Canada (though hundreds of miles of howling wilderness) and then trying to live off the land in New England. It’s not close to the same thing, at least not at the time we are talking about. Well, I was mostly just responding to your statement that 10k was a large army. It wasn’t. The Grand Armee was a large army, at 600k. The Peninsular Army topped out somewhere over 50k, and was the smallest of the major belligerents. 10,000 was not a “pretty big force, even by European standards.” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-1812-revisionism/531424/63 "2010-03-08T03:27:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yeah, the Brits think \*they \*perfected “rum, sodomy and the lash”. Mount Vernon was named after Old Grog himself, after all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-1812-revisionism/531424.md?page=3)