Originally Posted by Trevor

That's how american textbooks put it, which have no interest in the rest of the world other than the U.S. itself. And in this poll, how can anyone say the U.S. won? Last time I checked, retreating was not a sign of victory. Sheer Ignorance. 1812 is not only Canada's war vitcory. Vimy Ridge, and Juno Beach on D-Day to name a few.

You are making the assumption that the ONLY REASON that the United States went to war was to conquer Canada. That wasn't even to be found in the Declaration of War. The fact that they tried and failed invading Canada is well known. Does that constitute defeat? A failed offensive is not the absolute determining factor in the outcome of a war, especially when that invasion had nothing to do with the reason the war was declared. Conversely, Great Britain failed to invade and occupy the United States, despite some notable successes.

Does that mean that Great Britain lost, the United States lost and Canada won?

I for one am not naive enough to say that the United States won. They didn't. Neither did Britain (though admittedly, the British were a tad preoccupied with Europe at that time -- the USA was lucky that was the case.)

Great Britain was being a bit of a bully and the neighborhood 90 pound weakling fought back. Britain didn't go all-out and ultimately decides to respect the USA's independence and their rights on the high seas. The USA pulled off some incredible victories against ridiculous odds. They also lost badly in a lot of circumstances. Its a David and Goliath scenario. Sorta like USSR invading Finland - everybody knew that the Soviets should have easily won. Somehow, the Finns managed miracle after miracle, though they didn't win every battle.

They sound allot like flyingfrog on the Korean war.

Yes but China has a reasonable excuse: their government creatively rewrites their history for them and they don't necessarily have all the facts accurately presented. Canadians have access to all the data but don't appear to be willing to drop the point. "We won America, you're just in denial."

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Consider that during the peace negotiations, the consessions were not exactly severe on either side. Britain agreed to stop capturing US sailors and forcing them into their navy and agreed to respect the United States territorial borders. The disputed borders were clearly defined.

The Treaty of Ghent is an interesting treaty. In it both sides basically say, "this war was a bad idea, lets forget it happened and go back exactly to how things were before the war started".
No concessions were made by either side and the borders stayed exactly as they were before the war.

Isn't it strange that the traditional role of War Reparations, loss of territory, etc was not filled by the United States nor was it filled by Great Britain. In almost all cases, peace negotions of the time undertook to punish the loser in some form. The lack of this happening to either side is the strongest case for saying that the War of 1812 was a draw. To the victor goes the spoils they say, so what were the spoils?

In the Falklands War of 1982 the British gained nothing, but its rightly classed as a British victory.
Same with the War of 1812, the British may have gained nothing, but they didn't lose anything either.
In a war when a nation is attacked it is not always required for that nation to gain anything for it to 'win' the war, sometimes just holding on to, or regaining what is attacked is enough.
In the War of 1812 the US was the aggressor nation, and it failed to gain anything. Its war aims were not met.
The British didn't have any real war aims at the start, they didn't want the war. The only ones they had, were to retain British North America, and to end the war as quickly as possible with as few concessions as they could manage. While the war was not ended quickly the other two aims were met

Originally Posted by redcoat

In the Falklands War of 1982 the British gained nothing, but its rightly classed as a British victory.

Of course Argentina stated goal of that war was to take control of the Faukland Islands. Once again, the assumption is being made that the conquest of Canada was the underlying goal of the United States. It wasn't.

In the War of 1812 the US was the aggressor nation, and it failed to gain anything. Its war aims were not met.

That's arguable. Great Britain was the one doing the kidnapping of the United States sailors. The United States declaring war may have been ludicrous, but one thing that we did gain from that war -- Britain stopped doing that to American sailors. Hehehehe, the Royal Navy and its grand tradition of kidnapping to bolster its numbers. I wonder when they stopped doing that in Great Britain itself?

The British didn't have any real war aims at the start, they didn't want the war. The only ones they had, were to retain British North America, and to end the war as quickly as possible with as few concessions as they could manage. While the war was not ended quickly the other two aims were met

And you have the same problem on the American side as well. No clear goal other than "defying British treachery on the high seas", whatnot. I guess somebody on each side figured that if you're at war, you're supposed to invade, so both sides did so. Neither side gained anything, but neither side actually went to war with the intent of conquering territory. Frankly, the United States wasn't entirely sure what it wanted to accomplish. If Canada was the focus, then we might expect some "we've been deprived of our right to control Canada" nonsense rhetoric within the Declaration of War from the United States. Canada (as has been pointed out) was not mentioned at all. One of the biggest problems in the USA's armies and militias was drumming up any enthusiasm for invading Canada --- they really didn't want to and saw no reason for such an invasion. The New York Militia had at one point been asked to cross into Canada to attack and flatly refused to do so. It would be some time further on in the war before Canada would be invaded, and it was done with little more enthusiasm than the New York State Militia showed. I'm sure someone somewhere made it a goal to conquer Canada, the American people just weren't all that insterested nor fully aware of this goal.

In effect, we have Britain deciding, "Well, since we're at war, we probably ought to sack the enemy's capital and invade them." So they did so. The United States decides, "Well, since we're at war, we probably ought to invade the British Empire -- hey, Canada is right next to us, lets invade that." So they did so.

The Treaty of Ghent is an interesting treaty. In it both sides basically say, "this war was a bad idea, lets forget it happened and go back exactly to how things were before the war started".

This is a very true statement with a couple of modifications. There was some disagreement about exactly where the border between the USA and Canada was west of the Great Lakes. The Treaty of Ghent provided a clearer definition of the border, as well as the agreement of both sides to recognize that border. Britain did stop "impressing" American sailors into their navy. The USA proved that even though they were still a very weak nation, they would stick up for themselves when they felt threatened. Otherwise, everything went back to the way it was, making it one of the more confusing wars to study in the history of the world. Nothing much changed ...


The problem I'm seeing in the posts in this thread is a lack of convincing reasons to say that either side "won".

I will ask this to the people who say Canada won the war.

How many Canadians were supporting the British units through out the war? Exact figures at different battles would be nice.

I have not read of any in my studies and I would like to know the exact figures are. I know in the Revolutionary War, there were some Canadians helping out the British after the failed invasion of Canada. There were about 1,200 Canadians in Major General Burgoyne's force of about 8,000 as he pushed south toward Albany.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Of course Argentina stated goal of that war was to take control of the Falkland Islands. Once again, the assumption is being made that the conquest of Canada was the underlying goal of the United States. It wasn't.

I might believe you, if It wasn't for the fact that I know all about the War Hawks faction within the US congress ( Henry Clay and his "walk in the woods"), I know Americans don't like to admit this but the opportunity to take British North America was a major reason for the US declaring war on Britain ( even if it was unstated).
After all, its a fact that the US did consider declaring war on France at about this time for its seizing of US merchant ships ( the truth is France seized far more US ships than the British did in the period leading up to the war of 1812) however they decided against it because the French had nothing worth taking.

That's arguable. Great Britain was the one doing the kidnapping of the United States sailors. The United States declaring war may have been ludicrous, but one thing that we did gain from that war -- Britain stopped doing that to American sailors. Hehehehe, the Royal Navy and its grand tradition of kidnapping to bolster its numbers. I wonder when they stopped doing that in Great Britain itself?

At the same time, because the reason was the same. The war with France had ended, there was no longer any need to impress anybody. The war of 1812 didn't achieve this , the end of the war against France did.

In effect, we have Britain deciding, "Well, since we're at war, we probably ought to sack the enemy's capital and invade them." So they did so. The United States decides, "Well, since we're at war, we probably ought to invade the British Empire -- hey, Canada is right next to us, lets invade that." So they did so.

you make it sound like it was Britain who invaded the USA first, it wasn't was it.

This is a very true statement with a couple of modifications. There was some disagreement about exactly where the border between the USA and Canada was west of the Great Lakes. The Treaty of Ghent provided a clearer definition of the border, as well as the agreement of both sides to recognize that border.

The agreement didn't alter anything it merely stated that the border should return to the positions as agreed in the Treaty of Paris at the end of the AWI, and that both sides would appoint commissioners to meet and decide on any disputed areas ( but using the Treaty of Paris agreement as the yardstick)
Britain despite American folk-lore, had no forts or any military presence at all within the US borders( as agreed by the Treaty of Paris) before the start of the war.

sorry double post

Warning horribly off topic paragraph ahead

Actually its kind of funny... but the US did at one time invade the providential shores of great britain ... during the Revolutionary War.

Seems like John Paul Johns had an axe to grind...and he did.

http://www.2020site.org/pauljones/adventures.html


a regular little maniac this guy..but definetly worth emulating...


Now back to the topic..which is getting kinda dry by the way folks...we shall have to hang you by the neck..until you cheer up! (Monty Python strikes again)

Let us keep from refereing to an entire country's opinion in this discussion. As an American, I am going to get mad when someone says "Americans don't like..." just as a Canadian will get mad at the term "Canadians are the only ones..."

If this continues, we are going to have a flame war. No one wins when that happens.