Talk:War of 1812/Archive 3

ok.....so who lost more land then? after the treaty of Ghent was signed? I'm doing a history assignment and i rarely listen in class....so someone please answer my question!! thanks -Maddy :)

Bwahaha!
HAHA. That stupid brit in that picture of the battle of new orleans is stupid. He climbed over the mount and instantly gets shot.

With reference to the preceding paragraph, I think there should be a ban on 12 year olds editing Wikipedia

Canadians march down into the U.S. and burn their white house. Maybe they'll think twice about trying to invade Canada. ;) Funny how most schools in the U.S. leave this part out.

-G
 * No one marched down from Canada. They were British who came by ship. Good reason to leave it out and if your Canadian school taught you that, then they should have left it out too. A proud Canadian who believes in truth not lies. Dabbler 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct Dabbler. Ricky

Actually its highly unlikely that there were no Canadians that took part in the burning. The British had to rely on Militia early on so its unlikely that they disbanded them, or that they weren't integrated. Tourskin 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * washington was raided by british marines and regulars from the napoleonic wars. These were generally not drawn from militias IIRCZebulin 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to imagine otherwise. Prove it. Tourskin 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Found a source claiming it was British Navy soldiers (marines?) who conducted the attack, but that doesn't rule out Canadian intervention.Tourskin 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Canadians played a very active and decisive role in the war and constituted the overwhelming majority of british troops in Canada. They just weren't part of the amphibious campaigns.  Usually this is easy to see just by noting the particular histories of British units involved in such actions.Zebulin 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns
To view (and edit) all of the campaign boxes that appear at the bottom of the individual battle boxes, see: War of 1812/Campaigns.


 * Shouldn't this be moved out of the namespace? into a project page (into wikipedia:xxx) or something? JDR 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * what would people think of a campaign box for naval actions on the great lakes? (ie: Battle of Lake erie, Burlington Races, raids on York, Port Dover, the shipbuilding race on the lakes etc?)Mike McGregor (Can) 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Battle of Lake Erie, it was the turning point of the Detroit frontier, and so it definitely belongs in that campainbox; we'd lose the essential context if it was removed. (After winning the battle, Perry informed Harrison, then transported Harrison's army to Canada, and then accompanied Harrison's army to the Battle of the Thames. This was his theatre.) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

...Excuse me? THE BRITISH DIDN'T FIGHT!!! IT WAS CANADA (ACTUALLY OFFICIALY CALLED AT THAT TIME: BRITISH NORTH AMERICA) WHO FOUGHT!!! BRITAIN WAS BUSY WITH THEIR OWN WAR!!!


 * General Isaac Brock (who lead British North American troops...not Canadians)was from St. Peter Port in Guernsy, a channel island of both french and English speakers, not a part of the UK persay, but a crown protectorate, founded by the knights of King William the 1st as a job well done for gaining all this new land, where they could live tax free for the rest of their lives......kind of make you think of another bunch of well-to-do-people who wanted a slice of the "tax free for the rest of their lives" action?...yes American traitors...how can they EVER be called patriots?...they turned against their country, their brothers when they needed them the most and to add salt to their wombs, sided with Britain's mortal enemy...france thanks...also....the British Prime Minister, who was, after The BRITISH CIVIL WAR, the most powerful man in the country...not the king....disagreed with further taxing the Americans...but was shot down by DEMOCRATIC VOTE...WE HAD DEMOCRACY, WE HAD DEMOCRACY BEFORE YOU WERE EVEN BORN!!!!!....WHERE WAS THE DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATIVES?...OR THE BLACKS?....Dont try to do a PR job on my country (DazH)


 * So, according to you, it was the Canadians who sent ships to blockade American ports?  And it was Canadians who attacked cities in the American South?  Those were British soldiers sent from Britain.  Furthermore, while there was and Upper Canada and a Lower Canada (no unified Canada), Canada was not even moderately independent at the time--it was a colony of the British.  Indeed it could be argued that even today Canada is not independent because technically the British monarch or the monarch's representative in Canada has to declare war for Canada to be in a state of war.  Also, the British monarch (based in the UK) is the chief of state of Canada.  [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|20px]] Chiss Boy  09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * which IMHO explains in great part the confusion on the part of Canadians as to it's ability to participate in wars before it was a country. US citizens for instance will think of the so called "French and Indian war" as a war involving Britain and France and in no way as a war between France and the US whereas Canadians see the war of 1812 as a war between Canada and the US.  It's because of the murky indistinct line between canada the state and canada the colony.Zebulin 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another motive for the Americans for invading Canada
Several of the people here seem to be of the opinion that the United States invaded Canada solely to get more territory. While that was partly the case, it should also be taken into account that the Americans wanted to remove the British presence in mainland North America (at least with the exception of Belize, detached from the United States). Having a huge British colony where the British could send their armies at whim was an obvious threat to the integrity and survival of the young American nation. If the British sensed weakness on the American part, they could simply ship British regiments to British North America and attack the United States by land, getting their logistics from British North America. By taking over British North America, the United States would be removing a great threat to its survival.  Chiss Boy 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As an Englisman, who's spent a lot of time in BOTH Canada and the US, I'd whole-heartedly agree with that statement. It probably was the Us's ultimate goal to drive the British forces out of north America. It didnt happen so, who was the victor?...neither, it was a stalemate. (--H0ckeyd--)

Actually, I would agree with part of ChisBoy's statement, and disagree with part. Although impressment of sailors and blocking of (sea) trade were among the official excuses used to declare war (as stated in the first paragraph of the article), note in the next section that New England refused to participate. This even though most of the men impressed and and the hassles with trade were problems primarily for Yankee traders operating out of New England.

As well, at the time the war was declared by the U.S., Britain was heavily embroiled in the Napoleanic Wars in Europe, and had few troops in Canada, so invasion of the U.S. by Britain was unlikely. Thus, there is a school of thought that the War of 1812 was primarily a war of territorial agression, designed to expand U.S. boundaries north-westward at the expense of a poorly-defended Canada.

Such a move would benefit the Western-most states at the time (and was supported by them in Congress and in arms), but would not really benefit the New England states (who did not participate). In fact, for the most part neither did what are now the Canadian Atlantic Provinces. (There's a marvellous story in St. Stephen NB about the citizens sending gunpowder meant for their defence over the river to St. Croix ME so their American neighbours could celebrate the 4th of July during the war!)

Finally, there is the evidence that, once Napoleon was defeated and Britain could turn its full attention to the pesky Americans that had been held off by a few regular troops supported by Colonial Militias, the U.S. quickly agreed to peace. The time for a quick land grab was over.

The alternative view (a war of territorial agression) really should be incorporated into the first section which IMHO is not written in an impartial voice.(There are references to this effect, but I don't have them at my fingertips - anyone else out there?) Any thoughts? And yes, I am Canadian, but try to stay impartial. --Esseh 03:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Its difficult to assess the putcome ofteh war - it had many factors not just survival. Remember, during this time the United States was begining its Manifest Destiny view. Besides that, the British were also searching American ships to stop helping Napolean yet the Napoleanic war ended by 1814 so it was pointless to contiue in 1815.Tourskin 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

all that vandalism...
Would it be worth protecting this article for a set period of time to see if maybe the vandals move on to somthing else? would it be possible to protect the page so that only people with a user profile can edit (as opposed to preventing all editing)? just a thought...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Semi Protect it Battlefield 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, block the IP. It's consistent.--Sar e kOfVulcan 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And then two others show up. Figures. SP requested and received.--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the SP SirIsaacBrock 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ask the wikipedia Main Page help desk. Ricky


 * I think the page should be locked until it can be fully cleaned up. Currently not even the bots can fix it as they are reverting vandalized pages to early revisions containing other vandalization by other users. J Reusch 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed from main page
This doesn't seem to be appropriate as it stands and rather contradicts the main thrust of the atrticle that the war should be considered a stalemate.

America's First Vietnam?
The war of 1812 is sometimes seen as America's first Vietnam. The US major goal of invading Canada was repulsed, while the British main goal of defending Canada and repulsing the American forces was achieved. The British also took several harsh swipes at the American government; Detroit was surrendered and occupied by the British, the capital was invaded with numerous government buildings destroyed, the majority of battles were won by the British and the Americans lost more ships than the British. According to Historian John Eisenhower, depending on definition, the war of 1812 was the first war that the US army lost.

Please give reasons here if you want to replace it. Dabbler


 * It's probably a bad comparison to make because of the way the effects on US public of the 2 wars were nearly completely opposite. Vietnam ended with a nearly unaminous public acceptance that it represented a shameful defeat.  On the other hand the US public immediately following the end of the of war of 1812 (and for decades afterward) somehow managed to convince themselves that they had decisively won the war.  There were ridiculous statments tiresomely repeated that Andrew jackson had to be the greatest general in the world since he had beaten the military that had beaten Napolean.  Whereas vietnam largely ended with a US public feeling chastened about the war the war of 1812 ended with a public that became almost immediately dangerously cocky resulting from romanticized notions of having defeated the british empire.  This attitude would give Us presidents great difficulty in balancing the demands resulting from such perceptions with the needs to pursue realistic foreign policy goals.Zebulin 09:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Who lost most?

 * Rather than stick with stalemate and have people keep inserting comments about which side really lost, perhaps we can find and include statments supporting claims that each side (and the Indians) lost --JimWae 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * US successful in getting British to vacate forts in US territory
 * US Navy had successes vs British, winning the majority of naval battles
 * US failed to add Canada, failed to remove British from NA
 * Britain failed in its attempt to invade New York
 * Indians lost protection of Britian in US frontier
 * US lost slaves freed by British
 * US won "The decisive battle of the war" according to Winston Churchill, (The Battle of Plattsburg)
 * drive to abolish slavery was halted
 * US burnt York (then the capital, now called Toronto)
 * British Burnt Washington**
 * British forces were not driven from US soil, but left in order when the peace treaty was signed**
 * British held the only significant land gain after the war (Maine)**
 * With the vacation of British forts in territory claimed by the US, the US sovereignity over that land became undisputed, setting the stage for western expansion
 * British won the majority of land battles**
 * British troops had finished war in Europe, and were starting to move to the US to continue battle**
 * Last military Victory of the war was achieved by the British - Fort Bowyer**
 * War ended with British army on US soil, but no US army on Canadian soil**
 * British troops,Canadians and Indians achieved a number of victories when they were heavily outnumbered**
 * US troops achieved a number of victories when they were heavily outnumbered
 * British Fleet in US territory at the end of the war (at Biloxi?), left untouched**
 * British refused to revoke the policy of impressment at the Ghent treaty**
 * The US only defeated superior numbers of British troops in two battles, and then largely because the US were defending from fortified positions against British in the open**
 * US lost invasion of Canada because it was split into four different attacks, with no communications between them (according to Winston Churchill - History of the English Speaking People)
 * US lost the war at the battle of Chryslers Farm

Specific mention of the White House being burned and gutted should be included too - if nothing else, it served a significant blow to US morale.

I'd just like to point out the British where not the aggressors. The Americans invaded, and despite some scattered sucess, they failed in there plans to control Canada. Id call that a defeat.

Copy of lead from another online encyclopedia
How can something be plagiarism when you credit the original author?--Kev62nesl 05:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim its is called the fair use doctrine, being it is an american author writing the article the fair use doctrine would apply--Kev62nesl 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement then - still, usually sources are not incorporated wholesale into another work without quotes AND direct attribution. The page says "All rights reserved". Even if that were not an issue, a direct copy from another encyclopedia does not indicate any indepepndence or originality in wikipedia. Aside from that, the text is awful. Who decides it's the most forgotten and why is that important enough to be in the lead? It does not even say clearly who was involved or how long it lasted --JimWae 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

reworded and referenced--Kev62nesl 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it so much "confirmed US independence" anymore than NOT starting the war would have - it was more that if the US lost, it could very well have ended up a colony again. If enough changes are made there is no need to use that source. ALso there is hardly any formatting in your new version. How is this an improvement over the previously existing wiki-text? --JimWae 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that is comfirmed that the US was independent, correct me if my study of histroy is wrong but after the war were US merchant sailor forced into service of the crown. Maybe I have missed it but that stopped after the war. Which was one of the origins of the war and thus was one the original aims of the war to stop thses things from happening. So I didnt see the original opening as correct. thats the great thing about wiki if you disagree someone can present and opposing view and expand knowledge. --Kev62nesl 06:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to read more of the article - the war with Napolean ended FIRST (necessitating another change in your intro) - and impressment stopped because they did not need sailors as desperately - though the UK considered most of those impressed had deserted anyway. Impressment was not covered in Treaty of Ghent --JimWae 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt think Napolean was finally defeated until June 18th of 1815. Secondly while impressment might not have been covered in the treaty it ended after the war--Kev62nesl 06:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There seem to have been breaks in the Napoleonic Wars (during the exile at Elba) and apparently impressment ended before the 1812 war ended AND the Brits were able to send more troops to NA. If you disagree with something, do not just replace it with another POV - counter it with alternate POV. Your lead is quite US-centric - especially "lone bright points for US" part. --JimWae 07:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

while lone bright points definitly could be reworded to be less US-centric, the war was not the resounding British victory that the previous intro had made it seem, the previous intro made it seem as if there was a spanking administered by a parent and then the child was sent to their room, which is not the case. --Kev62nesl 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if taking somebody else's introduction wholesale and rewording bits of it is legal (and IANAL so I'm not touching it), it's pretty lousy practice. There only seems to be one person here trying to hoist this new introduction, and it's a pretty crummy, POV-ridden introduction at that. I'm reverting back to a version which has survived I don't know how long. You don't like the one sentence which addresses how the war went, change the sentence. Lord Bob 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As an addendum to that, I've tidied up the introduction a bit. You are right in that one sentence was pretty bad, and I think this one points out the situation in a more balanced manner. Lord Bob 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The British attacks on US teritory were more retaliation than serious attempts to reconquer the lost colonies. The real "loss" for the British was that they had to give up their violations of American sovereignty and perhaps treat the country more seriously. Dabbler 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with that. Certainly, things like the burning of Washington were just getting the Americans back, but some of the campaigns (the Battle of Plattsburg in particular comes to mind) seemed to be real grabs. Lord Bob 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Troop Strengths
The listed numbers for the sizes of the respective armies appear incorrect, or possibly from different times during the conflict. This paper lists The December 1814 British army in North America at 52,163 men and the U.S. regular army at 38,186(in September 1814). The page's troop total listings of 99,000 and 10,000+ do not reflect this. Perhaps the 10,000 number comes from the troops under Prevost marching along Lake Champlain? I don't know where the 99,000 number comes from either, though the other U.S. numbers seem to be of persons who served at any time during the war rather than at any single moment. I propose a change the army strength estimates to specify December 1814 and to use 52,000 British and 36,000 US regular army as estimates. --Noren 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been dispute over the numbers in the war in the past. In this case, as the source is not a peer-reviewed journal article or a published book (despite the fact that Mr. Graves has done some excellent scholarly work on the war), I'd consider it secondary. Troop strength estimates are always a bit of a guessing game, although Graves's assertion of British regular strength at this point is five times ours for the course of the war. If memory serves, our numbers originally come from Donald Hickey's The War of 1812 and have been augmented by looking at another source or two. Any chance you could track down some more scholarly information to support the most drastic change, that of 52,000 British regulars during 1814? I'd be happy to look myself, but as I'm well away from my university for the summer I don't have access to the library. Lord Bob 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not near a suitable library either, unfortunately. The article I mention above cites army pay records for 48,163 of the reported troops.  Quoting from it, "...these monthly returns will be found in the War Office 17 Record Group of the Public Record Office. Although care must taken with the figures in these records as they will often vary from the more detailed and reliable regimental returns found in War Office 25, the monthly returns provide a fairly broad overview of the general dispositions of the army."  I don't have access to "War Office 17 Record Group of the Public Record Office", but nothing in here strikes me as being less than credible.  Could someone please elaborate further on what the sources were for the existing 99,000 and 10,000 figures? --Noren 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I was not involved in getting the numbers, I have no more information than I already relayed. Hopefully somebody else will be able to chime in. Lord Bob 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit more. The source for the 10,000+ number appears to be this edit, referencing Elting rather than Hickey. Looking up page 11 of Elting, the paragraph this statistic was taken from reads:
 * At the outbreak of war Prevost commanded approximately 10,000 regular troops, British and Canadian. The latter were "fencible" units, raised for service only in North America, but equal to British Regiments in training and equipment.16 A more powerful regular force than the United States possessed at that time and far more ready for combat, it was scattered from Nova Scotia to the Great Lakes, and would require months to concentrate.

It is clear that the version as it currently exists is not a comparison taken at the same time, but of numbers from two different sources referring to different times. The Elting source for the 10,000 number specifies that at that time this was more regulars than the US possessed, not a factor of ten fewer as the current summary panel misleadingly suggests. I'm inclined to edit to replace the current numbers with those from here, adding a comment to specify December 1814 for BOTH numbers as the time of comparison.--Noren 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the edit that inserted the 99,000 figure here. There was no reference or reason given in talk or in the article. The editor 64.83.134.2 who made the change appears to be an anonymous, habitual vandal. I'm reverting to the non-vandalism-sourced 57,000 figure from Hickey for now; I'm still wanting to unify the timeframe as I mention above and will plan to proceed with that later. --Noren 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties
while were on the subject of the info box, where does the "17,000 other deaths" in the US casualties come from, what does it account for? Is anyone abel to insert a footnote similar to the ones for volunteer strength and militia strength? is ther a better approach to explaining this?

Yeah... That does seem like an awful lot for "other"...

What were they doing back then...

By the power of custard! 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalemate or loss for the US?
I'm confused how this war is considered a stalemate. The 'win conditions' for Canada/Britain was to defend Canada from invasion. The result was that they marched on Washintgon DC and burned the Whitehouse down. It looks like a total victory for Canada/Britain to me. Can anyone elaborate on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added on 2006-04-12 02:43:16 by 199.172.169.15.


 * The White House was not "burned down", as it's inevitably phrased by Canadians. The interior was torched, but the original building remained standing (and remains standing to this day). The British troops did, however, burn the Library of Congress. Where do you Canadians learn this stuff, anyway? Please tell me it's not in school. Maybe if you got some real accomplishments of your own, you wouldn't need to brag about the exaggerated accomplishments of an entirely different country (i.e., the United Kingdom). Oh, while we're at it? Alexander Graham Bell was not "Canadian". He was a Scot who became a U.S. citizen and remained one for the rest of his life.

74.134.234.31 04:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you. However, my understanding is that it is considered a stalemate because the war ended status quo ante bellum. Moreover, particularly towards the end of the war, the British did have a policy of trying to take American territory, and were unable to hold most of what they got (and, of course, the Treaty of Ghent took what they did keep away). So that's my understanding for the justification. At any rate, there have been previous discussions/edit wars over the matter and consensus seems to be that it was a draw. Lord Bob 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How was the war of 1812 anything other than a British victory? From the British viewpoint the United States launched the aggression in an attempt to capture land while Britain and her armed forces were busy defeating Napolean. Britain's only aim in the war was to defeat the invaders and restore the status quo before the aggression, which it acheived.

It is said that America achieved its objective of stopping the British boarding its ships, however this stopped anyway because the British defeated Napolean and therefore had no need to interdict American supplies heading for Napolean's army or search for British deserters hiding on American ships.

To further illustrate the point, if Mexico declared war and invaded the United States and America responded by repelling the invaders, launching a counter attack and razing Mexico City to the ground I think most Americans would consider that a slam dunk victory.

That is precisely how the British feel and the analogy is about as perfect as you can get.

I have seen this debated over and over on usenet, and it possibly has been for decades. This stalemate result is by no means clear. There is a large contingent of people (including famous 1812 historian John Eisenhower) who believe that the US main goal of invading and annexing Canada was unsuccessful, and the British military aim to repulse them was.

If a theoretical border conflict occurred, and there was fighting and the situation returned to the previous status quo, then that would be a stalemate. However, where one country has launched an invasion, and has been repulsed, then they have lost..and it is clearly not a stalemate. I'm sorry guys, IMHO the results should say "US invasion repulsed" or some such thing, to call a stalemate is quite clearly a biased result to the US.Deathlibrarian 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read a lot more on the subject, there is a stronger case for this to be a win for the Canadian British forces. If no one disagrees, I think this should be changed to a loss for the US. Just to say "Its always been seen as a stalemate" when the facts indicate that it wasn't seems wrong to me, and indicates possible US bias.Deathlibrarian 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stick to the facts, and putting the treaty result in the results is flawed. Treaties and win/loss results of a war are separate concepts. Win loss results should be based in objectives achieved, not on what a treaty decided. This is normally how Wikipedia treats these things, and there is not need for a pro US deviation here.

As I have stated before, the treaty after the Korean war returned it to the status Quo as well. However, as the US had repelled an invading aggressor in that war, and pushed them back to the status quo...it was a strategic victory for the US. The Wikipedia entry for the Korean War does refers to a strategic victory, not to a treaty.

Hyprocritically, Canada has repelled an invading force back to their original border, and this is somehow different? The historic facts are that the invasion of Canada failed, and this is ignored in the results. This shows a clear bias in this article. If we disagree in the results, then it should be indicated.

I agree that most historians see this as a stalemate, however, increasingly a lot of readers and historians (including John Eisenhower) see this as the US army's first loss. Historical viewpoints change. The US army failed in their attempt to take Canada, the British army not only pushed them out, but burnt Washington, captured a number of cities, and only left US soil when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I frequently read comparisons to the korean war being universally recognized as a victory for the united states rather than a stalement. I can't find a revision of the wiki korean war article which declares that war to be a US victory.  FRom where comes this assertion that everybody regards the Korean war as a US victory and not a stalemate?  So far as I can tell the only victory ever claimed in Korea for the US was an economic one in that south korea decisively "won the peace" in the decades after the fighting ended.


 * continued reference to the korean war as justification for claiming that the British empire (or even "Canada") defeated the US in the war of 1812 ending the war asx a victory for the British Empire simply do not seem to make any sense after examination of the existing attitudes concerning the Korean war.Zebulin 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it was a draw

I'm confused
How can people say that America won, or that it was a tie? If one country invades another country and is defeated, didn't they lose? I understand that the war stoped British harrasment of US shipping, but does that meen they won? The primary objective of any invasion is the capture and occupation of enemy territory, if the Americans didn't acheve this and were turned back, how was the war a tie? (I'm not anti-american or anything, this just gets me alittle confused)-ConfusedCanuck


 * Quite simple, Confused. You Canadians don't look at the war from the U.S. perspective. The war aims of the U.S. were not solely to conquer Canada. The chief war aims of the U.S. was for Britain to leave the U.S. alone. Canada was a partial goal of the war, but not the whole goal. We wanted Britain to stop impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy; we wanted the right to trade with France and the Continent; and we wanted Britain to stop supporting the Indians in the Northwest and Southwest, which they were doing. Of these aims: 1) No conquering Canada, but we stablized the Northwest Frontier by the (mostly) victorious Niagara campaign and by defeating Tecumseh and his alliance. It wasn't just American aggression into Canada; British forces occupied part of our Northwest for years after independence. 2) Impression of American sailors became a moot point with the ending of the Napoleonic wars, as did interference with American trade. 3) We were fighting British-backed Indians in the Southwest (then Alabama and Florida) and defeated them.  Furthermore, in combat with Britain we held our own; for every Detroit, there was a Chippawa; for every Bladensburg, there was a Baltimore; and our Navy excelled in ship-to-ship fighting. In doing so, American arms made it possible to get a status quo ante bellum treaty, which officially makes it a tie; but it was really a war all both sides won, because both sides accomplished their war aims! --GABaker 3 June 2006 20:04 UTC

I am neither American nor Canadian, but Canuck you are completely correct. The two main aims of the US were to annex Canadian land and, as GAbaker says, to stop the impressment of US citizens into the British Navy. The US achieved neither of these objectives with the war (the Brits stopped impressing US seamen before the war started), and they were defeated in their attempt to invade Canada. Not only were the US repelled, but the British army crossed the border, burnt Washington, continued to wander the US, including an unsuccessful attacks on New Orlean, and only left when the peace treaty was signed. The primary objective of Britain was to drive the invaders out, which they did. And they burnt the invaders capital, as well. It is a loss for the US. In addition, the British Army was never driven from the soil. I am not anti American either, and hae a great deal of respect for the US, but IMHO to call a situation where an invasion of a country fails as a stalemate is just pro US propaganda. Deathlibrarian 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Canadian I would like to point out that Canada did not exist until 1867. It was Britain and its colonies who fought the Americans. I doubt there were (m)any "Canadian" colonists burning the White House so the usual claim that Canada burned the White House is nonsense. However, the British certainly did not "win" this war because they agreed to return to the status quo. In those days it was normal for winners to claim and obtain teritorial gains as a result of war, if only to reduce the chance of a follow-up atttack. That is how Britain obtained what became Canada from the French. For example if Britain had obtained control of both banks of the St Lawrence by the US ceding territory, then that would have demonstrated a victory. The fact that Britain gained no territory demonstrates that it was NOT a victory, but an agreed stalemate. That is not to say that if the war had continued one or other side would eventually have prevailed but Britain was clearly war weary after defeating Napoleon and so was prepared to accept a stalemate. Dabbler 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This cannot be right, America did not achieve a single one of their war aims as a result of their armed aggression against BNA. 1) As I recall a good amount of British victories were on the Niagara pensisula, Lundy's Lane Queenstown Heights ect. 2) Impressment may have stopped, but not as a result of the treaty, the invasion did not strongarm the British into giving up the practice, hindsight is a beautiful thing, the Americans had no assurances that impressment would end when they signed the treaty. 3) The natives may have been defeated, but the British were not forced to stop aiding them, which they continued to do. 4) Numerically the number of victories and lands taken ended up in the favour of the British, making it impossible for "for every Detroit, there was a Chippawa; for every Bladensburg, there was a Baltimore". Navally the Americans did hold their own against the British, not too hard when they were facing the tip of the little finger of the British Navy. Lastly this whole matter of quo ante bellum making it a tie is tiring as it is being used in an improper context to prop up an American bias. When considering who won or lost one must consider the military aims of each combatants. Americas aims were the direct opposite of quo ante bellum, they did not want the borders to stay the same, they wanted BNA, making quo ante bellum a "moot point". Britains goals were to retain control of their BNA possessions, which they did. The American invasion was repulsed, making it objectively a British victory, not much of one considering the land grabbing mentality that would take place which met with some success, only to give the land back, but still a victory none the less. Frankely in personal opinion neither side were great winners of losers (despite evidence that points to clear winners and losers), rather their was just one big loser, the Native Americans who helped the British in hopes of gaining (what was once already theirs) a homeland. Some of the posters on here have a decidedly callous view of the NATIVE AMERICANS (not "indian" mind you) goals, they wanted a home free from American aggression and expansion, (British expansion had been toned down since the Royal Proclaimation of 1763, a cause of the american revolution, or some say) and were fighting for this goal. All in all no one really won anything, rather some just lost.

The Underlieing Goal of the War for America, was the same goal that they fought the quasi war, and the Barbary wars-American Sovernty. Canada, was just a way that Americans thought they could voice their Sovernty, which was being infringed upon by Britain. You must ask your self why America, a land that had a Frotier, that was not settled, and had an excess of Natural Resouces, want Canada. It had no need what so ever for Canada. Why then would you send men do die for something that is totaly and completely irrelvant to anything? The answer to this is because America needed a way through which I could assert its Sovernty against Britain. To make this clear, the American goals, to Canada, and to the War, were the same goals that they fought 3 other conflicts in this era-Sovernty. And although Canada was not taken, America sucessfully asserted its Sovernty, through the course of the war. America's goal in the War was completed, and therefore America can even go so far as to be able to claim sucess in the war. The argument here is that the British, and the Americans had different goals in the war. Yes the British were sucessful in their goals of defending thier territory, but the Americans were sucessful in defending their sovernty. Lucas(CA)

It can hardly be said that they simply wanted to stop the impressment of sailors. If that were the cause for war, it would have ended three weeks after it started (Britain revoked the hate orders that allowed the capture of American ships). I think its fairly obvious that the United States wanted to annex Canada. By the power of custard! 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Draw
Something is a stalemate when the two parties involved agree it is a stalemate. when one party may have an advantage but pressing that advantage would do more harm than good they are to a stalemate, as is in chess. Hence the Treaty of Ghent (status quo ante bellum). --Kev62nesl 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in terms of the treaty, the forces returned to their borders before the war. But in terms of the goals achieved, The US did not achieve theirs, and The UK and Canada did. Ok, the British forces not only repulsed the US forces, but go into the US, burn the capital, capture Maine and Detroit, attack a couple of another cities and then finally leave because a treaty is signed.....and you call that a stalemate?

Apart from that, do you have any references to the British at the time referring to it as a stalemate?

I will give you an example of why this is a biased article. Korean war..North Koreans invaders pushed back to status Quo. Wikipedia says strategic victory for US. Fair enough, and to tell you the truth, I agree.

War of 1812.Us invaders pushed out and UK army wanders around the US, leaving when a treaty is signed.Wikipedia says stalemate? You telling this isn't Biased? C'mon guys!!!!!!! Please leave the dispute remark on the result until someone proves this isn't a biased article.211.28.215.155 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How can the result be in question. The result is as the treaty says, are we disputing that the land didnt change hands, is there some part of the United States that was taken. Napoleon invaded Russia and was occupying russian lands would anyone call what happened in the end a victory, Germany during world war 2 occupied almost all of Europe and we know how that ended. Just because you advance into a land does not mean you can hold it. That is why you call it a stalemate, you cannot hold that which you have taken and you stand to lose more in the end, so you negiotate, Do you think the British didnt want to gain some land, do you think that they were like hey we just had to fight this war on land and on sea but we dont want anything in return, they negotiated a treaty that was in their best interests because of what they stood to lose. I dispute the fact that the U.S. didn't achieve anything during this war.The British ceased the sovereignty violations that the United States had objected to prior to the war and that was the cause of the entire war, had those violation not happened the war would not have occured, this war wasnt ove a land grab scheme. You need not knockout a bully to win a fight, you need only to get him to cease the action that caused the fight. --Kev62nesl 11:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you can argue that it was an American strategic victory because after the War of 1812, Britain never again seriously challenged the United States in north America and on many occasions gave up territory and conceded to the American POV. After the War Britain withdrew from American territory it occupied in the north east of Maine. So the British did withdraw from territory they occupied. Dabbler 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kev62NES The fact that you refer to the British as "the Bully" when the US started the war with a well known primary objective of expansionism shows you know very little about the war of 1812. You should read a little bit about this war before you further discuss it.It also shows the level of US bias in this article.

Dabbler in my mind, it would have been a strategic victory for Canada because it halted US expansionism into Canada. Apart from some of the Irish Loyalist raids, the US never again attempted to attack Canada after their disastrous attempt in 1812-1814 Wether Britain challenged the US again in North Anerica does not relate to the goals of the war, and no doubt related to other things as well, so to say it was solely a result of the war is conjecture....If Britain even had the interest/desire to challenge the US in North America any more anyway.

IN short I say change results back to Loss for US 211.28.215.155 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I was using the bully anaology to illistrate a point being you need not destroy an enemy to achieve a goal, secondly, I call impressing a countries citizen into service and capturing their merchant vessels bullying. Third if you dont think that British challenging the U.S. in North America wasnt a goal of the war you might need to learn a little more about the war.--Kev62nesl 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all Canada did not exist in 1815, so Canada won nothing. Your use of the term Canada in this context emphasises your lack of knowledge or a very POV attitude. Lets discuss this with some relation to reality.

''':When I said that Britain did not challenge the US again in North America I was referring to the almost unending British concessions in every dispute with the US over boundaries and borders during the whole of the 19th century. Canada lost a lot because Britain would not be drawn into conflict with the US again. A US strategic victory, n'est ce pas, avoiding ever having to fight to win your way? But I am not arguing for a victory for either side, both won something and both did not gain something and territorially no change. Stalemate. Dabbler 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)'''

Are you serious? You know most objective people would see the US trying to annex land from its much smaller neighbour Canada as bullying. Are you still refusing to admit that land grabbbing was a goal of the US? If so, you haven't even read the Wikipedia article that you are defending!In any event, if you are using "British Bullying" as a defense of the War, it had in fact stopped before the war started.

British Challenging the US....The main aim of the British was to defend the Canadian territory, and to teach the US a lesson. The British never had any designs on further warfare with the US outside doing that, that I am aware of, as far as I know they were just defending their borders. If you know of anything, please state the source.

What I would really like to see here is some British and Canadian viewpoints on the war, not just US onesDeathlibrarian 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? The US was a much smaller neighbor to the British Empire.   In the falkland islands war would you claim argentina fought a war with the falkland islands or were they fighting the United Kingdom?


 * interesting that you thought one of the main aims of the british was to teach the US a lesson. Given the ridiculous notions that immediately developed amongst Americans after the war that they had decisively defeated the British empire it would seem that the British failed in that particular main aim.


 * In any event what sort of view point are you expecting to see from the British or Canadians that you feel is not currently visible?Zebulin 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A few easy questions to determine if it was a stalemate. Did anyone gain any territory? no. Did one side not expand a large amount of money fighting the war? no. Were the causalties so one side it is undeniable who won? again no. Notice a trend. Oh a U.S. goal that didnt recieve much attention. Stop the British from supporting the Indian (natives) attacks. They did accomplish that. Oh and how do you keep skimming over the soverign violates as if they didn't happen. --Kev62nesl 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

oh and for a canadian point of view

I agree with your few easy question, except you conveniently left one out. Anyone Gain territory - No (though Canada and the UK weren't looking for any). One side expend large amounts of money - No Casualties lesser or greater - No Goals of each side Achieved - Yes - UK goal achieved. No - US Both goals not acheived.

Is my point getting through yet?

Sovereign violates? Do you mean impressing US citizens to work in the British Navy?

As for stopping the British from arming the Natives so they could stop the US invasion of their territory, I didn't think that was a goal, at least not a major one. Deathlibrarian

The british were arming the natives before the War. Lets review British stopped soverignty violations, yes impressing U.S. citizen into service & capturing U.S. merchant ships is a violation, the Indians(natives) were no longer being armed by the British, which was a major cause of the war. However the U.S. did fail in expanding into the British Territory, which we presently know as Canada. You keep refering to canada as a seperate entity from the British they were one in the same, ruled by the same government. --Kev62nesl 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Isn't Dabbler a canadian? So wouldn't he have a canadain view point?--Kev62nesl 08:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you need to check your facts. The British stopped impressing US citizens into the US navy before the war started, so it was *not* some feat achieved by the war. In fact, they did not agree to stop their policy of impressment...they simply had no need as they were downsizing the British Navy after the defeat of Napoleon.

The Brits cancelled the Orders in Council (that which caused the stopping of ships during a state of war with Bonaparte) 2 days before the USA declared war....even after learning of this cancellation and the fact that UK Parliament had bowed to US pressure, the USA did not cancel it's own declaration but rather continued with the war. Hmmm why do you think?

Canada at the time was a colony of the UK, the term Canada had been used to refer to this area long before the war of 1812. It was culturally, separate with the same Queen and Parliament. Canada also had its own militia, who fought alongside British regulars.

I believe the Brits tried to stop the Natives from attacking the Americans after the war. Not sure about the motivation, and not sure if it was because of the war, or they just wanted to stop further bloodshed.

If Dabler is Canadian, I don't know why he isn't arguing that Canada won the war. I certainly would be If I was.211.28.215.155 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dabbler has a Canadian passport, but he doesn't let that blind him to some of the facts of history and assert the claims of his country that did not exist at the time. He also has read quite few histories ofthe period and drawn his conclusions from that. Dabbler 11:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you lose when your oppenennt agrees to a stalemate? oh wait for it, It can't.--Kev62nesl 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

You mean how like the US agreed to a stalemate in the Korean war? And how that was a US Victory? Dunno Kev62, You tell me? You see guys, where the US repels an invasion by someone else, and the status Quo is once again achieved its a US victory. But when the Canada repels a belligerent US and the status quo is achieved...its a stalemate? 211.28.215.155 12:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler, certainly the Brits and Canada may have lucked out on land negotiations because they didn't want to go to war with the US, over the 19th century. However, there would have been many factors that came to play with that, like an ever expanding US military, greater US ecomonic power, greater respect for the US in global quarters, that may also influenced it.To say that Britain and Canada continuosly gave in on negotiations with the US over the next 100 years because of the awful lessons they learnt in 1812 (whatever that might be) is conjecture. 211.28.215.155 12:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Korea is an irrelevance and any statement of victory or loss may be incorrect too. However, the Treaty of Ghent laid down that both sides returned to the status quo ante bellum. That is a fact that we can all agree on, I hope? Stating it was a British or "Canadian" victory is an opinion which is disputed here. Stating it was an American victory, which I did to show that there is an opposite argument which is equally invalid, is also an opinion. Wikipedia should stick to facts not opinions. The fact is status quo ante bellum. Quod erat demonstrandum. Dabbler 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I aggree with Dabbler. The outcome of the war was the Treaty of Ghent. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I personally think it was a British/Canadian victory (yes there was a Canada at the time, Lower & Upper with the same Governor General), AFAIK no reputable historian, not even the Canadian nationalist Pierre Berton, makes that claim. It's not up to us to decide on whose victory it was, but to report on what reliable sources say. So it's a draw or stalemate. At best we might report that some historians claim it was a British victory, if they can be found, but that the majority state it was a stalemate or a draw. Luigizanasi 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dabler is exactly correct and I am in alignment with Luigizansi's comments as well. Without a reliable source, to say that one side or another "won" this war is an opinion and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on original research.  I would add that newcomers to this discussion might wish to consult the archives for this page, where the subject has been discussed, at length, and resolved by consensus.  Sunray 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stick to the facts, and putting the treaty result in the results is flawed. Treaties and win/loss results of a war are separate concepts. Win loss results should be based in objectives achieved, not on what a treaty decided. This is normally how Wikipedia treats these things, and there is not need for a pro US deviation here.

As I have stated before, the treaty after the Korean war returned it to the status Quo as well. However, as the US had repelled an invading aggressor in that war, and pushed them back to the status quo...it was a strategic victory for the US. The Wikipedia entry for the Korean War does refers to a strategic victory, not to a treaty.

Hyprocritically, Canada has repelled an invading force back to their original border, and this is somehow different? The historic facts are that the invasion of Canada failed, and this is ignored in the results. This shows a clear bias in this article. If we disagree in the results, then it should be indicated.

I agree that most historians see this as a stalemate, however, increasingly a lot of readers and historians (including John Eisenhower) see this as the US army's first loss. Historical viewpoints change. The US army failed in their attempt to take Canada, the British army not only pushed them out, but burnt Washington, captured a number of cities, and only left US soil when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Descriptions of which side won or lost the most in a war that did not have a decisive outcome are interpretations. The bare facts are what is in the treaty. Any other attributions in the article of winning or losing (or degrees thereof) should be based on how other reputable sources have described the outcome -- analyzing the facts amongst ourselves and coming up with our own conclusions is Original Research. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the list of "goals" given. Hardly anyone fights a war from start to finish (and beyond) with a set list of unchanging goals, the war aims evolve as the war goes on and are adapted to circumstances. The British may have started out with a goal of resisting American invasion on the Niagara frontier, later they tried to annex a bit of Maine but gave it back because of the treaty. Was that a failed goal resulting in the war being a loss? No, they probably didn't start off trying to annex territory but when the opportunity arrived they took it and if the treaty had not said give it back they would have tried to hold it. Does that mean that they failed in one of their "goals" of the war and therefore it was a defeat? Generally, the consensus of external historians is currently that the war was a stalemate and we must report that as the result. If there are new interpretations of the result, then we can ALSO report that but until the new interpretation becomes the consensus of external historians, we cannot say that it WAS the result. Dabbler 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that both sides lost. There were losses of lives and treasure aplenty, at a time when none of the participants could afford to squander them. There were some intangibles to offset the physical losses, and I would have to mark out the extraordinary performance of the US Navy as a positive for the US. At that stage the Royal Navy was the leading maritime power by a long way, and for the Americans to inflict a series of defeats in single ship actions must have been humiliating indeed for the RN. The US should be rightly proud of their naval heroes. But, by and large, neither side could really claim to have even held their ground. They both went backwards in real terms. --Jumbo 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as we rely on the work of external historians to discuss the War, so can we rely on their commentary as to what the goals of both sides. The facts of history, as commentated on by historians have previously highlighted what the goals of the war were, from both sides. While there may have been some deviation from the goals during the progress of the war, you would have to be blind not to see that the major goals were not achieved on the US side, and were achieved by the other. Introducing spurious and/or minor goals just distracts the major facts.211.28.215.155 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that Britain lost when the United States declared war, the last thing the British wanted was another war when they were fighting Napoleon. However, it looks like its a stalemate, according to all the opinions here (notice opinions); one side won, the other side won, both sides won and neither side won. Dabbler 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea what your logic for the "Britain lost when the United States declared war" supposition is. They certainly didn't want another front, but how this equates to them losing the war? Particularly when the US invasion effort evolved into such a little threat...it was supported by barely trained militia that didn't see it as their duty to cross the border, and New England was so unhappy about the war they threatened to secede. Most opinions on here seem to say that it was a stalemate, indeed. I however have seen a number of healthy discussion on Usernets where people, 200 years after the war, are still trying to fathom how it is a stalemate when Britain and Canada...owned! Also most opinions on here are coming from the US viewpoint.Anyway, it appears this discussion will go on forever, so..I think I'll wander off and do a website on this211.28.215.155 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To go a bit afield on this, who won the Franco-Dutch War? The initial French objectives were similar to the American objectives in 1812 - to conquer the United Provinces, more or less. The French indisputably failed in this goal, due to the fact that a bunch of other powers (notably Brandenburg and the two Habsburg powers) came to the aid of the Dutch and saved them from destruction. But at that point Louis changed his objectives to "breaking up the coalition against me and annexing as much land from the Spanish as I can." He was wildly successful in these later goals, more or less. The fact that his objectives changed, means that it's rather impossible to say if France "won" or "lost" the war. I think this applies even more strongly to the War of 1812, because in that conflict neither side had very clear goals to begin with. Was the war really an aggressive expansionist effort by the US, like the Mexican War? I think it's hard to justify this. Certainly there were American politicians who wanted to conquer stuff in Canada. But it's pretty difficult to say the Madison administration pursued this as a consistent goal of American policy. Was the British goal to defend Canada? Certainly in part, but they also at times had much grander goals of conquest of territory from the United States, control of the Great Lakes, possibly more. And how about that naval war? The United States certainly outperformed expectations, but it made no progress on its central naval goal of preventing impressment, and this issue was completely ignored by the peace treaty. I think the basic fact of the War of 1812 is that neither side had any real goals - the British were mostly focused on the war in Europe, and didn't think of the war in North America as anything but a sideshow, while the American administration was dragged into a war it hadn't prepared for by the warhawks, and was basically incapable of pursuing any coherent goals. Referring to the war as a British victory would endorse the view that the war was "really" about Canada, and that it was a simple case of thwarted aggression by the United States. I don't think this is a justifiable gloss of the war. john k 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Please don't feed the trolls!