# Who 'won' the War of 1812 (again) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564 "2009-12-17T00:44:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/41 "2009-12-21T18:04:38Z")
It might have been politically impossible for Madison to have given Canada back once it was in US possession, though, no matter his intentions and no matter what was obtained in return. Americans would have fought and bled for it and won it, and might well have insisted on keeping it even if it meant fighting more. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/42 "2009-12-21T18:21:36Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > In addition, the United States by 1812 had experience in absorbing a hostile population, in Louisiana. We forget about it now, but the large French Catholic community in New Orleans wasn’t the least bit happy about being shunted from Spain to France to the mostly Protestant English-speaking United States in 1803. > > But, they quickly became reconciled. Peace and prosperity will do that. Under federalism, Louisiana maintained dual-language courts and government for many decades, and Louisiana to this day maintains its unique system of Napoleonic-based state law. > > I certainly agree that the annexation of Canada wasn’t a primary aim of the War Hawks in 1812. The conflict was about maritime rights and trade. But if the invasion had gone better, annexation (partial or whole) would certainly have been on the table, and the initial hostility of the rather sparse population wouldn’t have been an insuperable barrier. Keep in mind the legality/constitutionality of purchasing the Louisiana Territory was hotly debated by Americans at the time, as well. A lot of people in the United States would not _want_ to bring Canada into the fold, for many of the same reasons that many people in the United States bitterly opposed bringing Texas into the Union after its independence from Mexico. Additionally, it should be (again) kept in mind that the goal of both sides in the War of 1812 was to quickly enter peace negotiations. Obviously the British wanted to have as much territory as possible going into the negotiations so that they negotiated from a position of strength. The Americans sought to have all of Canada so they could have a commanding position in peace negotiations. By and large both sides didn’t really enter peace negotiations with significant advantages. The Americans early losses in the West had mostly been reversed by the time negotiations started in Ghent, and attempts to take advantage of the changing fortunes in the West mostly resulted in false-starts. For example America took Fort Erie but eventually abandoned it after fighting off a Canadian siege due to logistical woes. A fairly large British force attempted to invade New York, but was defeated at Plattsburgh (this force was made up of soldiers who had been sent to North America after the successful conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.) The famous British incursion that resulted in the burning of Washington delivered a huge morale blow, but they did not have the resources to take Baltimore and ultimately they withdrew without having any strategic gains. All of this ultimately meant that the British really held nothing to their advantage going in to Ghent, and nor did the Americans. It should also be noted that the whole reason battles like New Orleans and Plattsburgh were happening and why they were important is because it was not at all uncommon in this era for peace negotiations to take a very long time. British commanders in North America were aware that successfully taking territory in New York, or seizing New Orleans, was news that could potentially get back to Europe before the treaty negotiations were finalized. Such military successes in this era often lead to one side successfully getting territorial or financial concessions in peace negotiations. Of course negotiations were over by the time the Battle of New Orleans was fought, the Battle of Plattsburgh took place over three months prior to the signing of the Treaty of Ghent and is certainly historically important because a British victory there would have probably prolonged the war for many more years as the British would demand territorial concessions and the Americans probably would keep fighting to avoid making said concessions. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/43 "2009-12-21T18:24:18Z")
It would have been a lot more likely (and easier) for the American’s to give back parts of Canada than for the British to have given back New Orleans, had they captured it. -XT ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/44 "2009-12-21T18:25:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It might have been politically impossible for Madison to have given Canada back once it was in US possession, though, no matter his intentions and no matter what was obtained in return. Americans would have fought and bled for it and won it, and might well have insisted on keeping it even if it meant fighting more. Maybe, that sounds awfully fantasy-esque, though. Madison would have only been one party to the negotiations, and I actually don’t think the British would have signed a peace treaty that ceded Canada to the United States. In the real historical timeline, an early successful invasion of Canada actually may have been to the long term detriment of the United States because it would have lead to the British Empire bringing far greater force to bear against the United States. Talking about what might have happened ad hoc after a successful invasion of Canada is pure speculation, though. All we know for sure from the historical record is that annexation of Canada was **never** an American war aim, any more than deposing Saddam Hussein was an American war aim in the Persian Gulf War. Just because a lot of people rattle sabers about something, that doesn’t make it a war aim–the people who actually were in charge of the war effort never had it as a war aim, so it wasn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/45 "2009-12-21T18:35:36Z")
Not originally, no, but wars do take on a dynamic of their own. Aims can evolve far beyond anybody’s original intent. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/46 "2009-12-21T18:38:55Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You seem to have disregarded the key point in my assertion that annexation wasn’t a war goal–namely that Madison and his advisers only wanted to hold Canada as a bargaining chip and not as a permanent conquest. [The lengthy explanation as to how impossible any large scale annexation would have been from a position of political/legal reality in the United States in 1812 was just intended to illustrate _why_ Madison didn’t really want Canada.] > > From my readings the historical consensus is definitely that at least as far as the men who were _actually running the war_ went, there was no intention of permanent Canadian annexation. In fact historians generally regard the idea that the War of 1812 was fought over an attempt to annex Canada as a persistent yet false belief perpetuated by Canadian patriotism. > > There are a few good resources out there that highlight Madison’s thinking leading in to the War of 1812. Probably the most accessible today is Gary Willis’ “James Madison” published in 2002. You can get a relevant excerpt from this [here](http://books.google.com/books?id=khbk7WAK5YkC&lpg=PA97&ots=3shcH1dFPs&dq=1812%20Canada%20bargaining%20chip&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q=1812%20Canada%20bargaining%20chip&f=false). Since almost the entirety of Madison’s war planning revolved around a “quick conquest” of Canada and then using Canada as a bargaining chip to address all American grievances with the British, permanent annexation as a goal simply goes against the historical record. > > If Madison was planning to conquer Canada to use it as a bargaining chip (and history shows he most certainly was), then he couldn’t also have intended to permanently annex Canada; you can’t bargain with Canada if you don’t intend to give it back in exchange for getting what you want. > > Of course, history played out far differently than Madison planned; the initial invasion of Canada was disastrous and resulted in temporary loss of the Michigan territory. The entirety of Madison’s strategy was also probably flawed, in his mind the British would have to capitulate to his demands if he had taken Canada. He felt that the British were reliant on Canadian natural resources (especially timber) to successfully prosecute their war against Napoleon. The truth of the matter is, if Madison’s armies _had_ successfully taken Canada in 1812 it almost certainly would not have spelled doom for Britain’s war efforts. In fact it would not have materially changed the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars and it probably would have lead to the War of 1812 lasting longer and still probably ending with a return to the status quo ante. > > While the idea of the War of 1812 as a war fought for the “freedom of Canada” is a pleasant fiction for Canadians, there is no basis whatsoever for such a view of the war in the actual historical record. Remember, James Madison was President of the United States, and while a much weaker office than it was today that meant he was still commander in chief in 1812–if he didn’t want to annex Canada then whatever else anyone said in regards to a desire to annex Canada really didn’t mean very much. I disagree. While I have not read you Madison book, I accept your summary that Madison had formulated some plan to use the annexation of Canada as a bargaining chip. This does not change the reality - that plenty of Americans had other ideas, that these ideas were publicly stated, and that they were the real motivation for men risking their lives and reputations in this invasion scheme. After all, if Canada was merely to be handed back, all of those in Canada who supported the invasion (and there were in fact many) were set up to be comprehensively betrayed. Here is an article concerning the issue: > **[Find How-to instructions, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try](https://suite101.com/)** > > Suite101 is the go-to source for how-tos, home inspiration, DIY, and other ideas to try. Our team of experts is here to help you improve your home and life. Let's explore our site below: Home Improvement Discover expert home improvement instructions,... As Thomas Jefferson (last I heard, no “Canadian Patriot”) famously wrote: > [@](#): > > The **acquisition of Canada this year** , as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the **final expulsion of England from the American continent.** [Emphasis added] The “final expulsion of England from the American continent”. THAT is what was PUBLICLY stated, by a leading founding father of the American nation and former president. How can it be a matter of “Canadian mythology” that the intent of the invasion was annexation, when the US invaded Canada with leading Americans _publicly stating_ that their goal was “the aquisition of Canada” and “the final expulsion of England”? Nothing there about HANDING IT BACK I note! It may have been the case that President Madison had other plans, but they were not publicly proclaimed; the “annexation” plan, in contrast, _was_. Of necessity, as otherwise it would have been difficult if not impossible to drum up any enthusiasm for the invasion on either side of the border - by American idealists or by their Canadian sympathizers! ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/47 "2009-12-21T18:38:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not originally, no, but wars do take on a dynamic of their own. Aims can evolve far beyond anybody’s original intent. Well, in terms of Madison’s war aims I’d say they went like this: 1812: Quickly conquer Canada, sue for peace, get what he wants in exchange for giving Canada back. 1813: End the War without having to make any concessions to the British. Once it became obvious Canada wasn’t a fat turkey waiting to be plucked effortlessly by American militia, I think the political leadership simply wanted to navigate out of the war without suffering a loss. So I’ve seen no evidence that annexation was a goal at the outset and I certainly haven’t seen any evidence it became a goal \*during[/i]the war, when the “easy” invasion turned out to be virtually impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/48 "2009-12-21T18:44:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, in terms of Madison’s war aims I’d say they went like this: > > 1812: Quickly conquer Canada, sue for peace, get what he wants in exchange for giving Canada back. > 1813: End the War without having to make any concessions to the British. > > Once it became obvious Canada wasn’t a fat turkey waiting to be plucked effortlessly by American militia, I think the political leadership simply wanted to navigate out of the war without suffering a loss. > > So I’ve seen no evidence that annexation was a goal at the outset and I certainly haven’t seen any evidence it became a goal \*during[/i]the war, when the “easy” invasion turned out to be virtually impossible. More contemporary quotes from Jefferson: > [@](#): > > I know your feelings on the present state of the world, and hope they will be cheered by the successful course of our war, and **the addition of Canada to our confederacy**. The infamous intrigues of Great Britain to destroy our government (of which Henry’s is but one sample), and with the Indians to tomahawk our women and children, prove that **the cession of Canada, their fulcrum for these Machiavelian levers, must be a sine qua non at a treaty of peace**.—To General Kosciusko. vi, 70. Ford ed., ix, 363. (M., June 1812.) How is this not “evidence”? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/49 "2009-12-21T18:51:06Z")
Yet more: [http://www.jstor.org/pss/20173101](http://www.jstor.org/pss/20173101) 1812 proclamations to Canadians by invading generals - much said about annexation, nothing said about the “bargaining chip” theory. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/50 "2009-12-21T18:54:12Z")
I’d say it was a draw, as it was ended in terms remarkably similar to those both sides could have had before it started, if they’d been prepared to be more sensible. Few people here have ever heard of 1812, or if they have, the burning of a small number of public buildings in Washington is all they’ve heard. The war was only ever a peripheral concern here and it was soon forgotten. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/51 "2009-12-21T19:11:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree. While I have not read you Madison book, I accept your summary that Madison had formulated some plan to use the annexation of Canada as a bargaining chip. This does not change the reality - that plenty of Americans had other ideas, that these ideas were publicly stated, and that they were the real motivation for men risking their lives and reputations in this invasion scheme. You’ll find the following citations instructional: [The Causes of the War of 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=55079259) - Reginald Horsman [The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict](http://books.google.com/books?id=YoLL0HgYw-0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:1812+inauthor:hickey&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false) - Donald R. Hickey [The Republic in Peril: 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100695976) - Roger H. Brown And finally, and significantly: [THE UNITED STATES GREAT BRITAIN AND BRITISH NORTH AMERICA FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE AFTER THE WAR OF 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=750041) - A.L. Burt Burt notes that even the British Foreign Minister at the time openly stated that acquisition of Canada as a permanent annexation was never on the table of American strategy. > [@](#): > > The “final expulsion of England from the American continent”. THAT is what was PUBLICLY stated, by a leading founding father of the American nation and former president. I admire your dredging up the Jefferson quote, you’re putting a few good swings in but unfortunately it doesn’t change the fact that the war aims of the public are irrelevant. The United States was and is a Republic, not a direct democracy, the political leaders are the ones who craft war strategy and they are the ones who establish military goals, not the general public. And certainly not Thomas Jefferson, who, if he had had his way would have seen the United States enter the War of 1812 without _any_ of the heavy frigates which proved so effective at single ship encounters with the Royal Navy. If you note one of my earlier posts I actually already addressed the issue of Jefferson’s opinion, from my post (#37): > [@](#): > > Thomas Jefferson, quipping from retirement did express some desire to see the British pushed off the American continent. However he also felt that the areas of the Louisiana Purchase and further West should form as totally new countries with friendly relations and similar government to that of the United States; so his opinion probably isn’t one that was in line with that of most other people of the time. Essentially I argued then and now that Jefferson said a lot of crazy stuff throughout his life. Jefferson had as much influence on U.S. war strategy development in 1812 as George W. Bush has on Obama’s decision making in regards to Afghanistan in 2009. > [@](#): > > How can it be a matter of “Canadian mythology” that the intent of the invasion was annexation, when the US invaded Canada with leading Americans _publicly stating_ that their goal was “the aquisition of Canada” and “the final expulsion of England”? Nothing there about HANDING IT BACK I note! > > It may have been the case that President Madison had other plans, but they were not publicly proclaimed; the “annexation” plan, in contrast, _was_. Of necessity, as otherwise it would have been difficult if not impossible to drum up any enthusiasm for the invasion on either side of the border - by American idealists or by their Canadian sympathizers! From my Hickey cite (and I’m not sure how much of this I can quote, since it is from a copy righted work, apologies if I inadvertently violate any board rules): > [@](#): > > On December 16, 1811, after the debate on the war preparations had been under way for more than two weeks, John Randolph raised a specter that was to haunt contemporaries and historians alike. “Agrarian cupidity,” he said, “not maritime right, urges the war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word–like the whip-poor-will, but one eternal monotonous tone–Canada! Canada! Canada!” Randolph exaggerated, since at no time during the debates did territorial expansion overshadow the maritime issues. Nevertheless, some historians later seized upon his words to prove that this war was undertaken to acquire territory, that the maritime issues were merely a pretext for seizing Canada. > > There is no denying that territorial expansionism was a potent force in this era. Republican leaders worked assiduously to pry Louisiana and the Floridas loose from their European overlords, and government and frontiersmen alike pushed Indians off their lands with callous disregard for their rights. Many Americans also coveted Canada, if only to put an end to British influence over American Indians. But the desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war. Rather it was maritime issues–particularly the Orders in Council and impressment. “Canada was not the end but the means,” said Henry Clay, “the object of the War being the redress of injuries, and Canada being the instrument by which that redress was to be obtained.” Carefully read the second paragraph and Henry Clay’s words. Those were _public words_ spoken by the Speaker of the House, resoundingly rejecting the idea that annexing Canada was the reason for the War of 1812 or even a goal of the War. Henry Clay was _the_ driving force behind the War Hawks, he was the man, of the Congress known as the “War Congress” who was the most hawkish of all his contemporaries. His words, spoken publicly at that time can be seen as a very strong indication that the goal of using Canada as a bargaining chip was very much in the public record even at the time of the war. Now, it certainly may be the case that the masses didn’t closely follow the newspapers of the day and were not politically sophisticated enough to be aware of this–much as is the case in 2009. However, the record clearly indicates it was publicly acknowledged that the goal of the war was to seize Canada to force the British to the bargaining table. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/52 "2009-12-21T19:23:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Yet more: > > [On to Canada: Manifest Destiny and United States Strategy in the War of 1812 on JSTOR](http://www.jstor.org/pss/20173101) > > 1812 proclamations to Canadians by invading generals - much said about annexation, nothing said about the “bargaining chip” theory. You should be aware the work you just cited is written by Reginald Horsman, who in another book of his writes this: > [@](#): > > The bitter anger that arose in America at Indian hostilities on the Northwest frontier, and the belief that the British officials in Canada were instigating Indian attacks, undoubtedly added to the irritation at Great Britain, and helped to win popular support for the war. Yet there seems no reason to suppose that this was either the basic cause of the war, or even the factor that finally impelled America into open hostilities. Even had there been no Indian problem, it seems likely that America would have gone to war in 1812. The increasing demand for war after 1809 arose naturally out of the failure of economic coercion as a means of resisting British maritime policy. The same areas that had desired to change British policy by economic means also supported warlike means of achieving the same ends when peaceful methods failed. The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it. America in 1812 was acting essentially in reaction to British maritime policy. This British policy, though influenced by jealousy of American commercial growth, stemmed primarily from the necessity of waging war against France. Had there been no war with France, there would have been no Orders in Council, no impressment, and, in all probability, no War of 1812. Horsman is not a historian who believes annexation of Canada was an American war aim in the War of 1812. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/53 "2009-12-21T20:08:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You’ll find the following citations instructional: > > [The Causes of the War of 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=55079259) - Reginald Horsman > > [The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict](http://books.google.com/books?id=YoLL0HgYw-0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:1812+inauthor:hickey&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false) - Donald R. Hickey > > [The Republic in Peril: 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100695976) - Roger H. Brown > > And finally, and significantly: > > [THE UNITED STATES GREAT BRITAIN AND BRITISH NORTH AMERICA > FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE AFTER THE WAR OF 1812](http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=750041) - A.L. Burt > > Burt notes that even the British Foreign Minister at the time openly stated that acquisition of Canada as a permanent annexation was never on the table of American strategy. > > I admire your dredging up the Jefferson quote, you’re putting a few good swings in but unfortunately it doesn’t change the fact that the war aims of the public are irrelevant. The United States was and is a Republic, not a direct democracy, the political leaders are the ones who craft war strategy and they are the ones who establish military goals, not the general public. And certainly not Thomas Jefferson, who, if he had had his way would have seen the United States enter the War of 1812 without _any_ of the heavy frigates which proved so effective at single ship encounters with the Royal Navy. > > If you note one of my earlier posts I actually already addressed the issue of Jefferson’s opinion, from my post (#37): > > Essentially I argued then and now that Jefferson said a lot of crazy stuff throughout his life. Jefferson had as much influence on U.S. war strategy development in 1812 as George W. Bush has on Obama’s decision making in regards to Afghanistan in 2009. > > From my Hickey cite (and I’m not sure how much of this I can quote, since it is from a copy righted work, apologies if I inadvertently violate any board rules): > > Carefully read the second paragraph and Henry Clay’s words. Those were _public words_ spoken by the Speaker of the House, resoundingly rejecting the idea that annexing Canada was the reason for the War of 1812 or even a goal of the War. Henry Clay was _the_ driving force behind the War Hawks, he was the man, of the Congress known as the “War Congress” who was the most hawkish of all his contemporaries. His words, spoken publicly at that time can be seen as a very strong indication that the goal of using Canada as a bargaining chip was very much in the public record even at the time of the war. > > Now, it certainly may be the case that the masses didn’t closely follow the newspapers of the day and were not politically sophisticated enough to be aware of this–much as is the case in 2009. However, the record clearly indicates it was publicly acknowledged that the goal of the war was to seize Canada to force the British to the bargaining table. Your own cited quote belies your claim. Your claim is: > [@](#): > > While the idea of the War of 1812 as a war fought for the “freedom of Canada” is a pleasant fiction for Canadians, there is no basis whatsoever for such a view of the war in the actual historical record. Your citation, in contrast, states: > [@](#): > > On December 16, 1811, after the debate on the war preparations had been under way for more than two weeks, John Randolph raised a specter that was to haunt contemporaries and historians alike. “Agrarian cupidity,” he said, “not maritime right, urges the war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word–like the whip-poor-will, but one eternal monotonous tone–Canada! Canada! Canada!” While it goes on to claim: > [@](#): > > There is no denying that territorial expansionism was a potent force in this era. Republican leaders worked assiduously to pry Louisiana and the Floridas loose from their European overlords, and government and frontiersmen alike pushed Indians off their lands with callous disregard for their rights. Many Americans also coveted Canada, if only to put an end to British influence over American Indians. But the desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war. Rather it was maritime issues–particularly the Orders in Council and impressment. “Canada was not the end but the means,” said Henry Clay, “the object of the War being the redress of injuries, and Canada being the instrument by which that redress was to be obtained.” The reality is - it simply is not so clean-cut. Different politicians gave different spins on what it was that they _really_ wanted. Fact is that the “maritime issues” were simply more _credible_ to certain interests - namely, the new England states - than territorial expansion, pure and simple. However, the War Hawks mostly looked on the “maritime interests” as an _excuse_ for their real goals - territorial expansion. That _included annexation of Canada_ and there is a plethora of evidence to prove it - from the statement you quoted, through Thomas Jefferson, through the contemporary proclamations of (hopefully) victorious invading American generals. The notion that the invasion of Canada was intended _merely_ to redress maritime concerns clearly must be nonsense, because as we all know those concerns were _moot_ by the time the invasion occurred; and while we would expect a certain amount of lag time (this was 1812 after all), how can “maritime concerns” alone have sustaned several more years of war? Fact is that wars, and the war of 1812 in particular, often have more than one “aim”. It strains credulity to believe that the _only aim_ of the war was maritime grievances (redressed before the war started). Not when significant figures of the American establishment are clamouring for annexation, significant minorities in Canada itself are welcomming annexation. Just think for a moment what would have happened if the Americans _succeeded_ in their invasion, sweeping aside the british regulars and militia opposed to them. The Americans now own Canada. The Brits have no base to land troops. Canadian sympathizers (and there were many, United Empire Loyalists aside) take key positions in the colonial government and agitate for statehood. Those like Jefferson who have been agitating for annexation are triumphant. American arms - gloriously vindicated. The whole continent - now American. And you are saying, with a straigh face, that the President of the United States is going to _hand it all back to Britian_ to redress maritime grievances that were redressed _before the war begain_? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/54 "2009-12-21T20:14:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You should be aware the work you just cited is written by Reginald Horsman, who in another book of his writes this: > > Horsman is not a historian who believes annexation of Canada was an American war aim in the War of 1812. You are missing my reason for citing the article. I am citing it as a handy way of collecting citations concerning the proclamations made by invading US generals, not for the opinions of the authour generally. In short, I am citing primary, not secondary, evidence. The proclamations all indicate what the Americans wanted the Canadians to believe was the “point” of the invasion. They did not state “Canadians, do not be alarmed, our occupation is purely temporary - we are invading as a “bargaining chip” with the brits”. Rather, they all, without exception, state that the Americans are here to continue the good work of the Revolution and turf the nasty Brits off the continent. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/55 "2009-12-21T20:24:56Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > Point of order: you mean ‘Britain’. The casual habit of freely interchanging ‘England’ and ‘Britain’ right royally pisses off the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish to varying degrees, depending on the subject. Please don’t. Uh, what’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/56 "2009-12-21T20:33:03Z")
My favorite proclamation was Smyth’s at Niagra: > [@](#): > > Be strong! Be brave! Let the ruffian power of the British king cease on this continent. … he failed to add “… at least, until President Madison decides to give it back to him”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/57 "2009-12-21T20:35:13Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Uh, what’s the difference? What’s the difference between “Texas” and “the USA”? ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/58 "2009-12-21T20:43:31Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Uh, what’s the difference? In the [Acts of Union of 1707](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707), England and Scotland merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Wales, incidentally, was part of England). In 1801, Ireland was added and the nation became [the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland). After most of Ireland became independent, the [1927 Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927) the nation was renamed [the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland) That’s the nation’s name today but recent political devolution has given some autonomous political control back to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Anyway, putting it simply, all English are British but not all British are English. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/59 "2009-12-21T21:30:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > My favorite proclamation was Smyth’s at Niagra: > > … he failed to add “… at least, until President Madison decides to give it back to him”. 😉 Oh well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I will say that if you do an exhaustive survey of the history out there you will note the conclusions of all major historians who have written about the War of 1812 in the last ~100 years or so is that annexation of Canada was never a serious goal of the American leadership. Well, aside from _one_ period of time–during the administration of Thomas Jefferson. For most of Jefferson’s Presidency America had been engaged in saber-rattling with the British, and Jefferson strongly desired to drive the British out of North America. However by and large Jefferson’s feelings on the British weren’t really all that mainstream. Jefferson was always more sympathetic to the French than the British, and always longed for a more French-centric focus in European affairs. However New England had strong ties to the British, and even the Southern planter class by and large wanted to maintain good trading relations with the British. Even Henry Clay’s camp, which felt that the British were hindering westward expansion via agitation of American Indians wasn’t really as anti-British as Jefferson. Jefferson’s administration was the period in which it was widely believed an American invasion would result in Canada becoming a new state and a happy part of the United States. Edited to add: The reason Jefferson never pulled the trigger was in large part because the Secretary of the Treasury (Albert Gallatin) analyzed the finances of the United States and reported that the war would be impossible to fund. Incidentally Gallatin was still the SecTreasury in Madison’s administration and he was a strong influence in advocating for the limited goal of temporarily taking Canada versus attempting to conquer it on a permanent basis. The driving force behind America starting the War of 1812 was maritime, and thus the primary goal was to resolve those maritime issues. When you have Henry Clay, _the leader of the War Hawks_, arguing that Canada is just a means to an end, and when you have **no evidence whatsoever** supporting the idea that Madison wanted to annex Canada all you really have left is popular sentiments. You can consider “popular sentiments” a “war aim” as much as you want, but to do so essentially makes the term meaningless. I don’t disagree that when you look at all the factions and all the citizens of a state, you will find many different reasons for different people advocating warfare. I actually go in depth about how that was the case in my first post in this thread (#37.) However, when you’re talking about the “war aims” you can really only look at the leadership of the country. Everything else is more or less meaningless. I’ve never contested that individuals in the United States wanted to annex Canada, however I maintain the people who were actually leading the U.S. war effort did not have that as a goal. If you can find evidence to support the notion that James Madison had as part of his strategy for the War of 1812 annexation of Canada, then please share it. If not, all you have is the sentiment of people who _were not_ in the driver’s seat. There’s no reason to keep bringing up citations for that since I am quite sure I’ve never denied that “individual Americans” wanted to annex Canada. If you look at most wars, you will find that the public often has many different reasons for supporting a war. However typically the leadership of a state has a few narrow goals in times of war and that’s all that is really worth analyzing, the rest of it is just fluff and patriotic drivel. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564/60 "2009-12-21T21:55:58Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Oh well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I will say that if you do an exhaustive survey of the history out there you will note the conclusions of all major historians who have written about the War of 1812 in the last ~100 years or so is that annexation of Canada was never a serious goal of the American leadership. > > Well, aside from _one_ period of time–during the administration of Thomas Jefferson. For most of Jefferson’s Presidency America had been engaged in saber-rattling with the British, and Jefferson strongly desired to drive the British out of North America. However by and large Jefferson’s feelings on the British weren’t really all that mainstream. Jefferson was always more sympathetic to the French than the British, and always longed for a more French-centric focus in European affairs. However New England had strong ties to the British, and even the Southern planter class by and large wanted to maintain good trading relations with the British. Even Henry Clay’s camp, which felt that the British were hindering westward expansion via agitation of American Indians wasn’t really as anti-British as Jefferson. > > Jefferson’s administration was the period in which it was widely believed an American invasion would result in Canada becoming a new state and a happy part of the United States. > > The driving force behind America starting the War of 1812 was maritime, and thus the primary goal was to resolve those maritime issues. When you have Henry Clay, _the leader of the War Hawks_, arguing that Canada is just a means to an end, and when you have **no evidence whatsoever** supporting the idea that Madison wanted to annex Canada all you really have left is popular sentiments. You can consider “popular sentiments” a “war aim” as much as you want, but to do so essentially makes the term meaningless. > > I don’t disagree that when you look at all the factions and all the citizens of a state, you will find many different reasons for different people advocating warfare. I actually go in depth about how that was the case in my first post in this thread (#37.) However, when you’re talking about the “war aims” you can really only look at the leadership of the country. Everything else is more or less meaningless. > > I’ve never contested that individuals in the United States wanted to annex Canada, however I maintain the people who were actually leading the U.S. war effort did not have that as a goal. If you can find evidence to support the notion that James Madison had as part of his strategy for the War of 1812 annexation of Canada, then please share it. If not, all you have is the sentiment of people who _were not_ in the driver’s seat. There’s no reason to keep bringing up citations for that since I am quite sure I’ve never denied that “individual Americans” wanted to annex Canada. > > If you look at most wars, you will find that the public often has many different reasons for supporting a war. However typically the leadership of a state has a few narrow goals in times of war and that’s all that is really worth analyzing, the rest of it is just fluff and patriotic drivel. No, you have not denied individual americans wished to annex canada. What you have said - risibly - is as follows: > [@](#): > > While the idea of the War of 1812 as a war fought for the “freedom of Canada” is a pleasant fiction for Canadians, there is no basis whatsoever for such a view of the war in the actual historical record. This is clearly untrue - there is much basis for such a view; including of course actual preclamations issued by the Americans aimed squarely at the Canadians concerned. I prefer to base my opinions of history on primary and not secondary sources. Look to what was actually said, and by whom, and the likely reasons for saying it. The point, as you must be well aware, is that there were serious differences of opinion over going to war with the brits. The “maritime states” of New England were not at all enthused about the war. The leaders of the War Hawks were desperate to justify their position. What better way, than to assert that the _real_ reason for annexation was to serve maritime interests? You are seemingly willing to take these folks at their word, even though what they say makes no sense. You are also willing to dismiss those actually calling for annexation as “patriotic drivel” - even though that is what the US was willing for outsiders (namely Canadians) to hear considering their own motives. You narrow the inquiry unduly when you, on the one hand, point out that the US was extremely decentralized and the views of the various regions must be taken into account - and on the other insist that only the (ostensible) views of President Madison must be accounted for in analyzing war aims. In a country like the US was in 1812, that simply will not do. It was not a presidential dictatorship and the views of persons not the President _mattered_. In short, you are moving the goalposts to suit a predetermined thesis. Again I ask: is it at all likely, or even possible, for the US to have given up Canada to achieve goals already achieved before the war started if the invasion had been as _successful as was hoped_? Your position requires an unequivocal “yes”. It is not realistic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-won-the-war-of-1812-again/521564.md?page=4)