They lost the battles that were important, except for the Thames. It is important that there are two divergent opinions, and they should both be recognised, rather than just the pro US biased one which you are advocating. Thus I don't think this can be can used in the big picture of things to stat the war was not a British victory. The American perspective was that it was a draw. The word stalemate appears in the article at various points, most importantly in the section "Terms of the treaty of Ghent" - it says "thus, the war ended in a stalemate with no gain for either side". Foremost American authority Donald hickey also states your view(bargaining chip) is myth. After the American Revolution, the United States and Great Britain were hardly on good terms. Once this objective was achieved, her infringements [impressments, etc.] Two books written by Brits that say that the War was a victory for Canada. 'Status quo ante bellum' does not describe the outcome of this war. They see the results of the war as a British victory, as the invasion of Canada was repulsed. At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outposts in the sparsely populated West while the Americans held Canadian territory near Detroit, but all occupied territories were restored at the end of the war. All of the causes for the war had disappeared with the end of the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and France. - And cease the British did, but not because the United States forced them to, but because Britain no longer needed to continue the policy in light of France's defeat. They pretty much got what they wanted but since by the time of the signing of the treaty Britain's war with France was (supposed to be) over so the British weren't really giving anything up so from their point of view it wasn't much of a victory but it wouldn't be a defeat either. No sides really won a military victory. The War of 1812 produced a new generation of great American generals, including Andrew Jackson, Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, and helped propel no fewer than four men to the presidency:. It began on June 18, 1812. 1 CANADA - as I said before the USA unquestionably wanted to annex Canada with this is being one of the prime tool to urge many Americans for war .RESULT (UTTERLY FAILED), 2 TO REVERSE BRITISH MARTIME POLICES AND END IMPRESSMENT- USA went to war to reverse British maritime polices such as impressment -RESULT- British maritime polices remained and impressment was successful during the Napoleonic wars (and was only stopped after it was not needed after the defeat of Napoleon) THUS THE USA brought about no difference what so ever ending up with its navy virtually destroyed and its coastline blockaded. *Most of the US Navy was destroyed during the war. The Americans surrendered an entire army at Detroit, they surrendered Mackinack Island, at Beaver Dams, Fort Niagara and Fort Bowyer. Tallying the winners and losers of the War of 1812 - National Post Wars of Independence, the Mexican-American War, the Franco-Prussian War or World War One), which do include significant changes in territory, finance, sovereignty or policy. Falklands War. The British had successfully managed to blockade Americas coastline. Any objections to my making these changes? As a result I think it would be more rational the stat strategic British victory in the results section as not stating this makes no sense when it clearly was. They pretty much lost everything. He was already going down to defeat in Russia in 1812. [8] while he also stated that the treaty of Ghent said nothing about the reasons the US declared war and contained nothing to suggest the US had achieved these war aims.92.23.135.227 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC), but the source also stated that as a result of the fighting ending in a draw ,the US lost because of this[9]. Shipman7 (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC), I think I disagree with the information in this box, I find it a tad pro US, and a little bit condescending. Therefore, I believe, that after 100 years, the British should finally get a say in the outcome of this war. They normally indicate who was victorious. Despite the numbers, my point stands, there is a divergence between the two countries, and certainly most Canadians believe it was a victory for them, while Americans argue that it was in fact a draw, or a victory for them. Creek War | United States history | Britannica If that wasn't bad enough you state how this war was a US loss when in fact every loss can be balanced by a victory as well. Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk contribs) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC), All in all, with the ongoing -and far larger- Napoleonic war, Britain was content to call the war of 1812 a draw and didn't waste time in deciding a victor. I have put a POV tag on the article while the inclusion of British Historian's viewpoint is being discussed Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC), Already stated about Hannay, there are two Hannay's writing around this time, one British, the other Canadian. your statement has no validly what so ever(1)- british policy of impressment was never stopped ,while harassment of US trade was only stopped as a direct result of the Napoleonic wars NOT USA ACTIONS. 5. as I have already stated the British cared very little and gave this barely a mention at Ghent (this was only a secondary objective). Argentina attacks Britain. I'm sure you can see its only fair that the page reflects the International opinion, not just that of the US. Let me explain to all those who cannot (or will not) wrap their minds around that fact. Certainly this is US bias, books on the War of 1812 written by British historians do not see the results as a return to the "status quo" (ie a stalemate). Tirronan (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC), This has been discussed a many good times. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC). had her trade routes disrupted and international trade brought to a virtual standstill, was nearly bankrupted in the process and ran the risk of a currency collapse. Argue till the pits of hell come but both sides sat down and signed because by their own evaluations this was a war with no end in sight with nothing to gain by continued fighting. Ok, as shakescene has brought them up, lets compare it to other examples of failed invasions so I can highlight the bias. This is a list of wars and humanitarian conflicts involving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its predecessor states (the Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and generally the British Isles).Notable militarised interstate disputes are included. So why the disconnect? End result, things returned to normal. I agree, people (including myself) shouldn't just make blanket statements without support, I'm just waiting on Carl Benn's book to come in and then I will post the quotes from each of the authors where they state their opinions. A Brief Overview of the War of 1812 | American Battlefield Trust The problem facing this discussion is that British and Canadians are going to be declared biased for stating the war as a draw or a British victory and vice versa for Americans. You can also consider other factors as well: 1. The British historians would seem to be saying that the successful defense of Canada was a gain! There are probably 100 books written by Americans on the war of 1812 that say that the US won, or it was a draw. THUS THIS WAR AIM FAILED. You don't. No one does since there hasn't been one. The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Great Britain backed by their Canadian colonies and Native American allies. As not only was the Indian buffer state already failing before the war of 1812 but Britain cared or had little ambition for it when compared the clear ambitions of US presidency to reverse British polices at sea and remove them from the continent which was what the war was primarily over. (Later comment, from August 2008, moved down by Xyl 54 (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)) Iraq pushed back. I believe, due to how the war was going, the British could have easily won the war if the Treaty of Ghent had not been signed. All maps, graphics, flags, photos and original descriptions 2023 worldatlas.com. The obvious safest route is to place the most specific information possible in the result field and avoid general terms entirely. The Chesapeake had become famous when the HMS Leopard attacked the ship off Cape Henry in 1807 looking for deserters. The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and the United Kingdom. It was at once Nearly all the aims of the American war department failed in some sense or another. During the course of the war, both the Americans and British launched invasions of each other's territory across this frontier, most of which were unsuccessful or gained only temporary success. The US could not push into Canada and suffered more defeats than victories. Only 29 years after the American War for Independence, Great Britain, and the United States again found themselves embroiled . And Dolley Madison earned her place in the history books for saving George Washington's portrait from the . Feel free to suppress free speech and hide this discussion, but be warned that truth lovers will revert it. Who really won the War of 1812? - Los Angeles Times Nothing about this war is clean or easy, and any attempt to tie it into issues of the present day is down right silly. *The United States retained control of the Great Lakes. No. as the war created very little change which was exactly what Britain wanted. The United States went to war against Great Britain. The two British books on 1812, Latimer's view and Lucas's viewpoints, are being ignored - that they saw it as a victory for Canada, as I have noted, as do many Canadians today. Each party had its allies supporting it. Although, the American Navy's destruction of his base of supply at Nottawasaga Bay, and control of Canadian territory north of Detroit served as a subsequent staging point for further destruction of his root sources of supply by American cavalry. In my opionion, this article has always been biased. 3. the indian threat was primarly addressed in the creek war thus little was achieved by the war of 1812. At the same time, the Spanish and Portuguese, with. Andrew Jackson and a mixed. Yes, the British retreat to Mobile, AL - but before the war this was owned by Spain, in this sense, the British aren't going there to cause 'mischief' per se. War of 1812 - Wikipedia Their second objective was to destroy the US (This objective was probably more important to them than defending Canada), which they did not. All the while, support for the war waned in America. He withdrew sullenly and reluctantly after the war ended, but his grip had already been made untenable. Except maybe to everyday Canadians. The British can say they won the war all they want but if that were true, The US would not exist. ( as British government aim was to fight US to draw ad retain Canada).but these sources here stat this a lot more clearly for you that the US didn't only lose but Britain won- here you go (this time with page numbers sorry)[10] [11] Imperialredcoat (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC), but remember we talking about who won the war not the peace treaty at the end of it and if the article stays like this it ignores the many other important views of historians who stat Britain won the war and achieved their aims .As practily every British/Canadian and some American historians including John Hopkins[12] states this view .While as I have shown with my debate with rejensen earlier this view makes a lot more sense and validity. Battle of Waterloo: Napoleon & Duke of Wellington - HISTORY I have had to insert British views, and they have been constantly removed. Which makes the argument rather mute. Here is the bias. These two are the only books written by Brits on the war of 1812, presumably there are Canadian books that support the British viewpoint as well. Obviously they didnt give us indedpendence because independence was already ours. To call this war the Second War for Independence is SPIN and nothing more because to do so would be to imply an American victory by the sheer fact that the United States remained independent. The third objective succeded however, when the US Army destroyed the Native congregation at the Battle of the Thames where they killed their leader; Tecumseh. Get this straight, and read the material instead of making blanket statements, despite 3 long years of effort by both sides the evaluation by the British PM and by various heads of Empire's generals (try Wellington for one), was that no real result had yet been obtained and no combination of efforts would or could result in a out right defeat of the USA. Battle of Baltimore, (12-14 September 1814), land and sea battle of the War of 1812 that spurred the writing of the "The Star-Spangled Banner," the U.S. national anthem. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC), The article is not neutral because it does include a POV claim in the info box - that is the US viewpoint that the war was a stalemate. The British also launched an invasion of the southern states, though the attack on Louisiana failed at New Orleans, the British launched a new offensive against Mobile, which saw some success at Fort Bowyer but then the peace treaty ended the war. New Orleans was no "great victory". Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC). Technically America won the war because the British ceased launching invasions of the US. What led to the War of 1812? By political stalemate, I mean the lobbying by both sides for a truce should go on those grounds. Who Really Won the War of 1812? - YouTube June 8, 2012 Quiz time! New England talked of succeeding from the Union. during the war, battles were waged in the St. Lawrence/Atlantic region, the great lakes region and the . As the British army was using many of their resources fighting in the Napoleonic Wars, Canadians (who at the time lived in what was Upper Canada and Lower Canada) and Native Americans helped the British in their fight against the United States.Many Canadians, especially those in Lower Canada (modern-day . The British did not want another war. This despite the fact that the United States: Most rational individuals agree that these attempts to obfuscate the truth are one possible explanation for why the United States is currently facing the financial, moral, and constitutional crisis that she currently faces. from Great Britain and Canadian colonists combined, meant that a new British Empfre was coming into being The War of 1812 (18 June 1812 - 17 February 1815) was fought by the United States of America and its indigenous allies against the United Kingdom and its own indigenous allies in British North America, with limited participation by Spain in Florida. These events vindicated the long tradition of Crown-Indigenous . The important thing for this Wikipedia argument is that a number of Historians believe, militarily, the US lost. Canada did. Some of the products scarce in the US including cotton clothes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC). 2. impressment did not end(another lie) and the USA failed utterly to reverse British maritime polices, these same rights saw the royal navy searching US ships in her blockade of Africa to stop Atlantic slave trade. Most of the American Navy was destroyed, and the US army suffered heavy defeats. The concept of being an 'American' still hadn't fully developed. The assumption that the British were arming hostile Indians: from the viewpoint of the British, they were protecting the Indians from the settlers (and there is the argument that the arming of the indians was simply trade). Furthermore, the British argue that the Americans failed to drive them from North America, which implies that they were more powerful. Lucas wrote that the US failed and the main thing that came out of the war was that it was "the national war of Canada", and the "the successful defence of Canada by regiments from Great Britain and Canadian colonists combined, meant that a new British Empfre was coming into being pari passu with the growth of a young nation within its limits. Andrew Jackson won the war of 1812. While you are right about the British being clear on this at Ghent it was also stated by the British diplomats that this was merely a secondary objective and not a primary one like of maintaining the 1812 status quo and maintain British maritime polices (which the war was primarily fought over). This is a different perspective to the view that the war was a stalemate because no land was gained by either side in the treaty of ghent. How are results like "military victory" even defined for a war? And it's important to put it in such simple terms to contrast its results with those of most such struggles (e.g. The Canadian's population saw it as a great victory. No it does not, because the war continued until we defeated the invading British army at Yorktown. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) The war of 1812 determined that North From the point of view of the British, the war is, quite literally a footnote in their struggle against Napoleon - "The overriding objective of the British government was to secure the defeat of France, and all else was subordinated to this aim. Personally I look at the following factors: 1. the poor state of the nation's finances and economy (British blockade); 2. inability to project land power into Canada. The United States main objective was to stop the impressment of US citizens into the Royal Navy, we succeded. - WorldAtlas Who Won the War of 1812? Watering down this War into some wishy washy "everyone was all happy at the end and all was equal" is really misrepresenting and an oversimplification of this war and hints at just one convenient side of the story Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC), I didn't mention the historians that say that the war was a loss for the US because they have been mentioned already in the section above, which discusses the issue directly, but happy to reiterate. By that reasoning, America lost the war. It is also a clear indication of the inherent weakness of the 'states' rights' camp. THUS being the reason why the page should change and stat British victory as not stating this seems wrong and a bit bias 92.30.146.187 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC). based on no sources? Although militarily the conflict ended in a draw, in a larger sense it represented a failure for Republican [Madison's party] policy makers. So stop telling us to grow up and admit your point of view, or that most historians think, or that most logical people think, I've looked and read and studied this to no end and there just isn't a clean single answer, and there never was.Tirronan (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC), Tinnonan, this is a continuing debate, with new books being published that look at the results of the war, Latimer's recent book being a good example, so it is fair that people continue to discuss the topic. PLUS it seems a bit illogical that the page on the war of 1812 does not stat British victory. Because of the battle on Lake Eire, The Great Lakes were split between America and Canada, thus the US gained water territory. It was a British military victory but American diplomatic victory, especially in the post-war period (essentially, Britain won the war, but the Americans won the "peace" and the peace treaty) auskillion 6 yr. ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC), So, there are few Canadian historians argue that this was a victory for Canada? What a surprise that a perpetually self conscious country can't produce historians to argue it's own perspective, but instead produces a bunch of self-impressed pretentious snobs who are 'above' petty Nationalism. END BRITISH SUPPORT FOR INDAIN FEDERATION (secoradry) - this process was already underway without the war of 1812 as USA was already pushing back NATIVE TRIBES in northwest region. I'm not attempting to downplay the importance of New Orleans, it was certainly a political victory; propelling Jackson to the White House, and it certainly re-ignited the American patriotic spirit, however if you look at it in a lateral sense, one side had a massive advantage over the other; the Americans had good ground, local support, heavy artillery and a good leader. Imperialredcoat (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC), I understand what you mean by the results section representing different historians views. If anybody won the war, we did, the war ended after two great American victories. Battle of Baltimore | Summary | Britannica And on top of this, Politicians in the UK at the time, according to Hansard, viewed it as a victory. The point is that British Historians writing about the war believe they won it, and US authors writing about the war believe it was a draw. The British also saw it as their legal right to retrieve their desertng sailors. SuperDudeGuy (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC), Well, tactically, the British won; we had fewer casualties and won more battles than the Americans. Instead of standing up to their oppressive government and re-claiming their constitutional rights as natural persons under the law, these ill-informed apologists waste everyone's time by pushing aggressively biased and ill-informed points of view and completely distorting the fundamental principle of neutral point of view expounded by Wikipedia. Any more of Tirronan's high handed and dictatorial control freakery and we are going to have to explain to him that Wikipedia depends on consensus. It seems that the viewpoint of the British Authors and Canadians hasn't traditionally been noted in this article because it doesn't have any British Wikipedia authors looking at it. while Britain cared very little for this treating them as a mere secoradry objective at Ghent THUS THIS WAS PRIMARLY ACHIVED THOUGH PEACE in 1814 RATHER THAN THE WAR ITSELF. 5)Britain were very inefficent at the negociating table. The US sees it as a draw, Canada sees it as a victory for them. Page contents not supported in other languages. Tirronan, I'm sorry that this discussion bothers you, I think its quite important (as do obviously plenty of other people), all I can say is if you would prefer not to discuss this aspect of the article, may be concentrate on some other aspect.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC). Many still referred to themselves as Virginians, etc. of events could have done to reconcile the two rival races within Canada to each other. As doing this would give answers to two of the main reasons for which the war was fought.Imperialredcoat (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC). To be honest, it was more of a one-sided victory that shouldn't have been fought. Though the invasion of the northern states was turned back at Plattsburgh, the British invaded Virginia, which resulted in the Burning of Washington, despite being outnumbered. Some 35,000 people were killed, wounded or missing at the end of the war. Canadian Lieutenant Colonel Robert McDouall invaded and held the American areas in the west around Prairie du Chien as the war ended. I know some of you are probably laughing at the thought, but I guarantee, many Canadian historians will first look at the Canadian situation, and then, as he is self conscious of Canada's importance within the world, he looks at the larger global impact. Americans had had enough of the Royal Navy taking advantage of its superiority in their impressments and blockade activities. When state governors are telling the Federal President that state militia will not operate outside of the state; nor cross into Canada; it seriously calls into question the ability of the early Republic to act cohesively for any purpose.Cw1865 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC), Dwalrus, the fact is none of these books are specifically on the war of 1812. lost control of significant parts of the State of Maine. Therefore the US clearly failed in ending these polices. Hardly a monumental victory in a sense; if you have an enormous advantage over your enemy. Support of tribes: Probably the only objective succeeded for the US, the Battle of the Thames resulted in his death, and thus the collapse of his dream of a united Indian nation. The goal to remove Empire traders from the American West, and interrupt their aid to the Indian tribes was (successful). Who truly won the War of 1812? - Medium Italy attacked Ethiopia, Ethiopia stops them. In any case, had the British been successful there, it is quite a stretch to believe they would have returned such an important port to U.S. for nothing. I welcome discussion but saying any of those are "flawed comparisons" is irrelevant. The war would officially end on Dec. 24, 1814, with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, although skirmishes continued for two more months. Andrew Jackson was elevated to hero status for his victory at the Battle of New Orleans. An exhausted, demoralised, starving and ill-equipped Jacobite army launched an uphill attack against British government redcoats, well drilled, well trained, well equipped with guns, cannons and flanking forces. had her capital invaded and many capital buildings, including the White House, burned to the ground. Please make a donation to TVO today. At the time it wasn't the financial or cultural center of the country and wasn't even particularly liked. Here is some copy I tried to include in the second paragraph of the introduction. It rather undercuts everything. Therefore no supply line was safe no campaign would continue for lack of logistics, and nothing had been accomplished. I understand Deathlibrarian's point. The British launched several invasions of the USA at will The USS Chesapeake engages the HMS Shannon during the War of 1812. For them the end result was total defeat. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Her aim was not to subvert American independence, but to win the war in Europe. The American army was forced on the defensive from the offensive basis which it began on, which is a major aim in any war; if you are attacked, the best way to end the war is to turn it the other way around; you are the one giving the enemy hell rather than vice versa. Who Won the War of 1812? "widely acknowledged by most historians" - by who exactly? History Marches quickly! The war was fought in North America and in the sea. So who tried to do what, and who came closest to successfully fulfilling their pre-war aims? And while Anglophiles like to point out that the Battle of New Orleans occurred after Ghent, the Treaty had not been ratified (thus the war was still on). The factors here were that I assume that he thought as the US invasion of Canada had been repulsed, there was no great need to continue, Britain was tired of fighting Napoleon, and militarily the Brits were not in a strong enough position to push for any land claims. Also, Will Arnett implied it was Canada on television. They consider themselves victorious because the war was more of a walk in the park for them, and not a struggle as the Americans consider it. According to Donald R. Hickey, author of 'The War of 1812 - A Forgotten Conflict' the war between the US and the UK, from the US perspective, was a tactical draw and a strategic failure inasmuch as the object of the war was to compel the British to agree to maritime concessions that the Treaty of Ghent obviously did not address.
Greenwich, Ct Elementary Schools,
Job Interview Vocabulary Words,
Articles W