While things did not go well for the US in the Niagra and Chesapeake Theaters, in the West, meaning Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, it went pretty well after some initial catastrophes (e.g. Hull’s march to Detroit and subsequent surrender). The Tecumseh Confederation of Northwestern Indians was broken and rendered impotent at the Battle of the Thames thereby leaving the British with no Indians to support and opening the Old Northwest to American expansions. Perry’s victory at Put-in-Bay secured the Great Lakes. Jackson’s victory at New Orleans secured not only the Mississippi River but the Louisiana Purchase. Albeit that Jackson’s victory came after the war was technically over no serious person can think the Treaty of Ghent that would have stopped Britain from occupying the mouth of the Mississippi if Pakenham had won at New Orleans. By the same token, Jackson’s defeat of the British supported Creeks secured the Gulf Coast for American expansion.
While the adventures of the American Navy make fun reading –the plucky Hornet and Enterprise sloops and the horrid heavy frigates Constitution, United States and Constellation-- to the extent the war was about seamen’s rights the impressment of seamen from US vessels (and even war ships) ended not because of the successes of the American Navy but because the Napoleonic wars had ended with Napoleon’s first abdication and Britain no longer needed to employ a full court press to man its warships.
I argue, then, that while the War of 1812 was no triumph of American Arms it did open the old Northwest Territory and the Mississippi Valley to American exploitation and settlement.
Impressment, and the Orders In Council, the ostensible causes of the war, became moot anyway with the fall of Napoleon. New England was muttering about secession, coastal shipping trade (virtually the only form of trade that was economic) was drying up with the British blockade and when Britain put forth all its power into the blockade would cease for good. Certainly by 1814 President Madison formed the impression that America was whipped at all points and instructed the envoys to end the war as soon as possible on the best terms they could get, even secretly instructing them to yield on impressment if they had to. They must have been surprised to find Britain almost as anxious to end the war as they were, with no significant concessions of territory on either side. Americans regarded avoiding total defeat at the hands of the strongest naval power in the world as a form of victory in itself, but in Britain the war made very little impression and was soon forgotten.
So from what some of you have posted it would seem that America’s ‘victory’ came in it’s diplomatic efforts to negotiate the end of the war (which it had started and was likely going to lose as Britain turned its attention away from France).
It still seems like too big of a stretch for today’s government to simply claim “The American’s won the war”.
America won in that its existence and independence was finally and permanently recognized, and its people gained more of a feeling of nationhood as a result, and at a cost that was much less than the value of those things.
It has also been noted upthread that Canada won those things as well, and probably to much greater affect.
Do you have any info on which countries, if any, did not recognize American independence in 1812?
As far as gaining a feeling of nationhood - it seems any war with any consequence could give any young country that. They would have had it even if they had negotiated a wars end that included losing a part of territory - say, northern Maine had become part of Canada.
Gosh, a “Who won the War of 1812” thread. Is it Friday already?
The United States won. Canada won. Britain lost a little. The Indians lost a lot.
If you go by what the various sides ended up with, there’s no other reasonable conclusion. In terms of battles won and lost it’s true the USA did not cover itself in military glory, but most of its key strategic objectives were achieved. Wars are not won by who wins the most battles, but by who ends up with most of what they wanted. Both the USA and the Canadian colonies got most of rhwt they wanted, so they won. The Indians got screwed big time, so they lost.
I always liked fictional RCMP Frasier’s comment in the TV show “Due South” that, “The border between Canada and the United States is the longest undefended border in the world. So that since their formation, our two countries have found a peaceful way to coexist. Except for the War of 1812, where your country invaded ours and we sent you packing, but that’s hardly worth mentioning.”
It was a draw or a slight US win, in the context of the actual aims of the war. The US’s war aims were to prevent the Brits from impressing our sailors, to prevent them from continuing a low level support of the native tribes against the US, and to achieve greater trade stature and prevent the Brits from imposing on our trade rights. By and large we acheived those aims. I believe the invasion of Canada was one of those on the fly aims that the war hawks just pulled out off the cuff…but in so far as it was a total disaster (big surprise considering the state of our military before 1812) we failed. The British war aims were to pen in the burgeoning US, to constrain it and either bring it back into their own sphere of influence, break it up or, perhaps, even re-absorb it directly back into the Empire. Their secondary aims were to prevent the US from further expansion northward into the Canadian territories, and from that perspective they were successful…but ultimately the were unable to prevent the US from expanding in just about every other direction, they were unable to bring the US back into their sphere of influence, were unable to stifle US trade or prevent the US from becoming a major trading and industrial power, etc.
So…pretty much a draw. And ultimately a really stupid war on both sides, one that COULD have been prevented if the Brits had been able to stretch their minds around the fact that the US was a viable nation and not subject to them, and if the US had been able to understand the British position and the stresses on their empire due to the war against France…IOW, if both sides could have actually talked to each other, instead of past each other.
Odd, but I distinctly recall learning in my junior-high American-history class in Texas of all places that the War of 1812 was a draw. (I say “of all places” because you’d expect Texas to put a better spin on these things.)
I was actually taught that the US lost, but then my grade school history and sociology teacher was a bit anti-American at the time and he was constantly referring to the Vietnam war (which was ongoing when I was in school) as a counter point to just about everything. War of 1812? Us lost, and it was a lot like the war in Vietnam. Mexican American war? Was an imperialistic war of aggression that the US lost, oh, and it was very similar to Vietnam. Revolution? Just like the valiant North Vietnamese, fighting for their freedom.
All roads lead to Vietnam when I was in school anyway…
It was a silly war, not much remembered on this side of the pond, but it was to Britain’s ultimate advantage to have a continent-sized anglophone ally and trading partner. Cheers for the help in the two world wars, btw.
Formally, none I know of, but in effect, the UK. Evidence of that is the naval impressment stuff, and the still-widespread notion there that the colonies would sometime come to their senses and return to the fold. Plus, there were others that recognized the nation but still thought it could be mugged for its lunch money without effect, such as the Barbary emirs. And that’s if you don’t get into the subject of Americans who recognized their own states as the true independent nations, merely engaged in a confederation of others for mutual convenience. There was a civil war later on that pretext, and you still often hear the notion expressed even today. The war tamped much of that sentiment down, though, including ending any real possibility of New England seceding.
I should point out that trying to conquer Canada again was still a topic of discussion in Congress until the Civil War broke out. After that, we were busy, after that we were sick of war, and then after that, it became status quo and who’d think of doing that?
(No cite, this is from memory of a dozen dozen history books and/or contemporary accounts and stories.)
Following the Civil War the U.S. government was a little bit pissed off at Britain for allowing a warship that was used by the Confederacy to be built in Liverpool. There was a contingent of Americans who felt as though Britain should be punished by invading Canada. However, nobody in the U.S. was seriously interested in getting into another war so quickly. The Treaty of Washington in 1871 established a final border between Canada and the United States, Britain agreed to pay the United States reparations, and there were some other issues that were settled. So far as I know, that’s pretty much the end of any serious British/U.S. conflict.
